>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:13 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an >>open source license
>>Thought experiment: What about Lisp? Or DSLs? >>It is a fundamental element of LISP that "data" and "program" are expressed >>(or expressable) using the same syntax. Also, various DSLs are expressible >>using program code (see, e.g., Ansible, JSON). So does that mean that the >>scope of a license changes depending on how you look at it? >>A bit more theoretically, does "software" comprise its input and >>configuration data? It seems like that can be included in the GPLv3 concept >>of corresponding source. I think a better analogy would be the inclusion of the Installation Information requirement in the *GPLv3 family of licenses. That imposes an obligation to provide data which is potentially completely divorced from the executable code distributed under the license, and thus the source code that must be provided. For example, a checksum or other hardware-instantiated feature which one needs to know in order to reinstall modified executables derived from the *GPLv3 license source.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
