On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> 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. * > FYI, This is exactly what the CAL does: It allows provision of the source code via a URL to a publicly-accessible repository.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
