Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:56 AM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, this has the effect of replacing the
> language in the earlier version that would have imposed copyleft
> obligations on APIs by choosing not to address the issue head on
> (contrary to what I think you recommended that license drafters ought
> to do in an earlier thread).
>
Well, I dealt with it head on and you (among others) objected, so I looked
at other ways to accomplish my purpose. The language above is designed to
be absolutely clear as to the scope of the license, regardless of how OvG
turns out. Thus, regardless of any prognostication as to how things will
turn out, no one can argue that I am pushing a policy point that is
contrary to the OSI's interest.
> However, leaving aside the notion of API copyrightability, isn't this
> problematically broad? How do you reconcile it with OSD 9 ("The
> license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> distributed along with the licensed software.")?
>
I'll defer that answer to Simon and McCoy, below. The language tracks very
closely to what is a "derivative work" under US law, thus placing it
squarely within the bounds of what has been already accepted.
Thanks,
Van
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
