I don't see how this is similar at all to requiring the user to make
data collected by an application available.
Your TiVo example still refers to being able to run the software, so
it's directly related to the software. The user data collected and
stored by is a product of the software that in no way affects the
software's usability.
I think your goals are laudable, but I don't think they should fall
within the reach of open source software licensing.
Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com
On 7/2/19 3:02 PM, VanL wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:44 PM Christine Hall <christ...@fossforce.com
<mailto:christ...@fossforce.com>> wrote:
On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> 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.
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.
This is quite a good analogy. Yes, these things relate back to the
software itself, but note how they relate: They allow a user to modify
and use the software *in the desired context.* This language was
included because various organizations said "you have the right to
modify and run the code, you just can't run the modified code in the
context of the device itself." For example, modified TiVo software had
the capability of being run on different hardware, just not on a TiVo
itself. Note that this also coincidentally denied users the ability to
use the recordings made by the TiVo (the "user data").
This language was added to emphasize that part of software freedom was
the ability to use the software in the same or a significantly similar
context. It was not enough to be able to theoretically be able to run
the software somewhere else; you had to allow users to access the same
hardware (and coincidentally, the same user data) with a modified version.
The data portability provision is similar. Is it possible meaningfully
exercise the right to fork, if as a result of forking, you lose access
to all your data?
Thanks,
Van
_______________________________________________
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
