And all of these things relate back to the software itself, do they not?
User data collected by an application is not necessary to have to
successfully use the software.
Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com
On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
*>>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
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
