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