On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:46 AM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is incorrect. I have corrected you on this point repeatedly, but you
> continue to make this unsupported argument.
>
Van,
In a discussion like this, you can expect people to disagree, and to *continue
*to disagree. It seems to me that if we are all going get along, the
appropriate response to such disagreement is *not *to take a strident tone
and recount how many times you have attempted to correct me, as if you were
a harried school teacher facing a recalcitrant pupil.
The CAL does not encumber any data. It does not change the licensing on any
> data. Please respond with the specific text that "encumber[s] data
> processed by the program."
>
The terms very obviously require the licensee to perform a specific action
with the data. If this is not "encumberance", what is it?
"Withholding user data" isn't a field of endeavor, just like "withholding
> source code" isn't a field of endeavor.
>
Of course development of proprietary software, sequestration of its source
code, and making use of copyright and trade-secret protection is a *very
popular* business method in the industry and can indeed be considered to be
a field of endeavor. We have already discussed on this list, and
license-review, why OSD #6 does not prohibit reciprocal licensing even
though this is so. I doubt that you really mean to open that discussion
again.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
