Florian, the portion of the GPL you are quoting does not describe a general limitation of the license; rather, it describes an exception of "propagating without conveying." That is to say, if these conditions are met, the people in question are basically assumed to be your employees or similar, and you're not triggering the requirements of the license that are typically triggered by distribution.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 06:35 Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * PEPPÈ Santarsiero: > > > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, > > which I have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license > > for evaluation to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to > > discuss any proposed modifications they may suggest. > > Do you expect this license to be compatible with the GPL version 3? > The GPL version 3 does *not* enforce copyleft, it actually encourages > in some cases to restrict further distribution and modification. > Quoting from the GPL: > > | Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so > | exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on > | terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted > | material outside their relationship with you. > > If a work under the Lachesis Open License does not contain a source > code distribution mechanism for itself, does the license create an > obligation to create one if the work is used in certain ways (say, if > it is used in hosting/streaming)? This would be far more problematic > than the AGPL situation because there, the network-based source code > distribution obligation only kicks in after making modifications, so > in practice it is possible to be compliant even if the AGPL-covered > work does not help with source code distribution. I do not see a > similar condition in the Lachesis Open License. This could > effectively create a restriction on field of use. > >
