A license can not self-identify using its own definition of "libre," because it lacks the social authority to do so.Please can you confirm that in every instance, every license self-identifies by its definition as "libre" ... What does FLOSS encompass? ... Please can you clarify how a user can assure that the license is "libre", rather than any non-libre alternative.
can be used commercially, free-of-charge, without further action including embedding, modification and hosting across distributions?There are also definitions of what kinds of permissions will encourage the FSF and OSI to add a license to their lists:
For example, fonts available under the LaTeX catalogue follow a variety of licenses that may be copyleft without exception – it is not always immediately obvious.I believe by 'the LaTeX catalogue' you mean CTAN.org; that site distributes proprietary freeware that the TeX community is able to redistribute but not modify.
Please can you also clarify the termination clause of the OFL v1.1 license, in terms of actual legal risk? For example, if the licensee uses a modified version online but fails to include or link to the copyright notice and licensing information.Non-lawyers can not advise anyone on actual legal risks
these types of license – theoretically – could be subject to updates?Some libre licenses, like the libre Creative Common licenses and the Mozilla Public License, have in their main text an 'or any later version' clause, which allows a licensee at their discretion to 'upgrade' their license to a later version when one becomes available.
Like in all areas of business, there are some shady companies who try to pull the wool over their customers eyes.
This is true. The minority of cases are where a copyleft licensed program copies parts of itself into its output, and therefore its output is under copyright a derivative work.James Puckett said:Works created with open source software are almost never subject to the license terms of the software