License conflict w/ EULA

[w00l3y3s]

Describe the bug

It appears there is a conflict with LICENSE and EULA.
There is a nebulous "Stable versions of ownCloud Infinite Scale are subject to EULA". "Stable versions" is not defined.

I do not doubt 3 years ago OCIS was Apache. But it really can not be considered Apache V2 w/ included EULA.

See the end of https://github.com/owncloud/ocis/blob/master/LICENSE

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
   You may obtain a copy of the License at

       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.

The above Apache 2 is quite clear that is conflicts with the EULA.

FWIW, Nuxeo does a fairly good job, minus the double negative usage, on their license page.

BTW: I think OCIS is really cool. Kudos!

Steps to reproduce

Open up the LICENSE. Open up the EULA. Read. Or contact ASF or FSF or what not.

Expected behavior

• License to not be Apache
• Free for non-commercial usage, open core, or some such thing.
• Describe very clearly licensing and spell out "Stable versions"

Actual behavior

• Mix of Apache license and EULA
• Owncloud OCIS website trumpets Apache-v2

[jgillich]

Agreed, this EULA is in direct conflict with the license. If you want to make this proprietary, at least be honest about this. Additional terms like this are total BS.

[hodyroff]

Let me start with the idea: ownCloud Infinite Scale (server side!) is Apache licensed in all its source code. Binary builds are also Apache with one exception, the QAed version of each stable release - currently that is 3.0 ...
As we wanted to make those builds still available through github we might have added some confusion. I can't follow the expected behavior above ...
So first I hope to be clear on the expected behavior with my above statemt ... is that correct? Then we can check where there is confusion and how to solve it.

[jgillich]

Binary builds are also Apache with one exception, the QAed version of each stable release

Stable versions are what 99.9% of users are interested though. So binaries are effectively proprietary with the exception of development builds..

This EULA is trivial to work around, but it will still alienate the FOSS community. It's your prerogative I guess, but to me this seems like a major mistake for such an early stage project.

[dragotin]

Please check #6755 for more clarification on the topic.

Note that the EULA is only valid for builds provided by ownCloud GmbH, and allows even commercial use widely.

Usage of the source code can obviously not be limited. Also note that the builds of Infinite Scale contain a mix of licenses like AGPL for the web frontend and Apache2 for the backend.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 10 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[megabert]

If ocis server is fully apache 2.0 license, why there is the EULA contained in the github ocis Server repository?

Here:
https://github.com/owncloud/ocis/tree/master/assets

For me that's causing trouble in terms of figuring out, whether ocis server is really open source. Thatswhy I'd rather not touch ocis at all since the project is not clearly stating it's open source commitment.

Requests:

• I request you remove all traces of EULA from the ocis Server Sources, so there's no doubt that only apache 2.0 License is in place.
• Can you clarify what the license of the ocis desktop app and ocis mobile app is?

Thanks a lot!

[DeepDiver1975]

If ocis server is fully apache 2.0 license, why there is the EULA contained in the github ocis Server repository?

Because binaries are published via this repo as well.

• Can you clarify what the license of the ocis desktop app and ocis mobile app is?

Please check the individual repositories for that.
https://github.com/owncloud/client
https://github.com/owncloud/ios-app

[megabert]

I'm unsure if this is the appropriate place to discuss this issue, but I do not know where there is a better place to bring this on the table.

If ocis server is fully apache 2.0 license, why there is the EULA contained in the github ocis Server repository?

Because binaries are published via this repo as well.

Ok. I understand that's a simple practical reason to have it that way.

At the same time, I assume the sole existence of this EULA document within this repository creates doubt and ambiguity about the licensing of the project and very likely causes damage to the reputation of this open source project in regards of whether the project is committed to the open source path and will stick to on long term or not.

I'm judging the situation that the people in the linux environment - including me - lost trust in owncloud - in the company and therefore in the project too - since the fork of nextcloud happened. What's regarding myself, I heard that the owncloud company is all about business and money (preconception) but I'm curious, if that is changing.

So I think it's vital for the company and the project to take every opportunity to regain or build up trust and I again recommend and request to remove that EULA document from this repository. Perhaps a seperate repository with the enterprise related stuff maybe a solution.

[micbar]

At the same time, I assume the sole existence of this EULA document within this repository creates doubt and ambiguity about the licensing of the project and very likely causes damage to the reputation of this open source project in regards of whether the project is committed to the open source path and will stick to on long term or not.

Can you elaborate on this?

I think the EULA is quite precise and clear how it is applied.

[megabert]

If a software is offered under the Apache 2.0 license it is considered as Open Source. If it is offered under the here written EULA it is not. And as already written here, the EULA as laid out in this repository and the Apache 2.0 license are mutually exclusive the can not be applied usefully together at the same time.

The existence of this EULA document in this oCIS-repository means for me: The EULA conditions overrules the apache 2.0 license and thus oCIS is not Open Source.

Whereas @hodyroff and @dragotin are mentioning that the EULA is only applying to binary builds and @DeepDiver1975 states that the document is located in this repository only because of practical reasons for building the enterprise oCIS distribution:

Note that the EULA is only valid for builds provided by ownCloud GmbH, and allows even commercial use widely.

So I assume, that ownCloud GmbH wants this repository be fully Open Source under Apache 2.0 license only.

But with that EULA document existing here, that's not clear for me. Without consulting a lawyer and reviewing the situation this is absolutely unclear to me und I'd rather not touch this software at all.

To fix that the EULA document should be removed from this repository. This also would be one plausible answer to the question: "Is oCIS really meant to be Open Source?"

Edit

If it is clear that it oCIS is meant to be Open Source, removing the document is a marginal fix.

[micbar]

Ok, for me it is quite clear.

The code is Apache 2.0 which it a very permissive OSI license.