Bruce Perens wrote:

> And doesn't this way of stating it make it very clear it's in contravention 
> of OSD #6? It would certainly be a field of endeavor to run the program for 
> anyone but yourself, or for anything but a private purpose.
 

Bruce, this seems to be a real stretch about "field of endeavor." What is the 
"field?"

 

/Larry

 

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf 
Of Bruce Perens via License-discuss
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:57 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Cc: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License 
(CAL) Beta 2

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:27 PM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com 
<mailto:van.lindb...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A person can run the unmodified program (and even a modified one) without 
having any obligations as long.as <http://long.as>  they run it for themselves, 
for their private purposes.

 

Van,

 

Haven't you just very clearly characterized this term as a use restriction? And 
doesn't this way of stating it make it very clear it's in contravention of OSD 
#6? It would certainly be a field of endeavor to run the program for anyone but 
yourself, or for anything but a private purpose.

 

    Thanks

 

    Bruce

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Reply via email to