On 7/2/2019 11:31 AM, VanL wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek > <pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL] > 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? > > > If that is the principle, then the AGPL fails that principle. I do not > see anywhere an articulable difference between a synthetic performance > right and one that calls it out on its face. > How does the AGPL fail? The right to run unmodified software has no burdens in the AGPL. But there is with CAL, the burden of providing data.
I think part of the issue here is whether the AGPL is a bridge too far too. In private conversations I hear that position expressed. So then it's trying to find a way to not go further. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
