Hi Henrik, There is a catch-22 here. I am trying to represent the law as I understand it. When I was explicit about my understanding of the consequences of the law, I was criticized for expressing it. Now, you criticize me for vagueness. But if there is vagueness, it is because the law is vague.
As I quoted upthread to McCoy Smith, my language regarding the scope of the license is very closely tied - in most points word-for-word - from the definition of derivative works in 17 USC 101. I intend to capture every derivative work, no matter how it is expressed. How is that not exactly what was intended, and allowed, and consistent with copyleft in its other iterations? Also: On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:54 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote: > [snip] > - I don't support the underlying goal of making money and attacking > competing implementations. > For the record, this is not the goal. The goal is to create a platform that is resistant to attempts to undermine user's autonomy. The CAL is one of the tools in that effort. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
