On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com>
wrote:
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee
> having an obligation. Is it a principle of open source software that one
> should be able to simply run software free of any obligations?
>
Yes, you are right. I would strongly suggest that further attempts at CAL
and other licenses attempting to use public performance as a trigger to
source distribution require it *only for versions that are not already
publicly available in a well-publicized, permanent location. *This would
remove the obligation for the naive user. I don't want to directly couple
modification because it is too easy to split the modification and execution
between two legal entities. I would like language that always catches such
modification.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
