It On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Johnny A. Solbu <joh...@solbu.net> wrote:
> Then you are effectively demanding registration. > That is still not allowed in Free and Open Source software, meaning, that > makes it Not Free and Open Source. > I belive the Free Software Foundation would even call it proprietary. > > I imagine most of the partitipants on this list would refuse to use > software that require them to register in order to use it. > The FSF rejected the RPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL : "2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately." In Ofer's license proposal this is registration of mere usage, not registration of publication (public disclosure) of modified versions, so is even less likely to be accepted by the FSF. I'm wondering if anyone can help explain to me what they see as the difference between the forced public disclosure of private modifications of software, and registration of mere usage, private modification, or public discloseof software? All of these involve the forced disclose of private activities. While I believe that there would be consensus on registration making software non-FLOSS, there appears to be a growing divide on forced public disclosure (and not strictly between the FSF and OSI, given the FSF has granted approval to licenses which cross the line of forced public disclosure of private activities). I agree that the outcome may seem different for those focused on source code disclosure, but the argument seems similar. In policy discussions (and licenses are part of a policy discussion, whether people recognise it or not) a bad argument can set precedent that can be used for different (possibly opposing) outcomes. We need to be careful about unintended consequences and not narrowly on the disclosed intent.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
