On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:15 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:06 AM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > >> * Henrik Ingo: >> >> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that >> >> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL. >> > >> > Note that the CAL specifically does not share this problem. It simply >> > requires you to provide a copy of the source and user data, but doesn't >> > mandate a specific user interface or other mechanism for doing so. >> >> The CAL has the *exact same problem* if it is applied to software that >> lacks a built-in mechanism for identifying the relevant sources and >> the user data (let alone providing a built-in downloading mechanism). >> > > We discussed this last year when reviewing the CAL. It is true that this > can be an issue for some software. However arguably this is the exact > opposite problem to what you point out in the AGPL. > Nope it's the same problem. If the original code wasn't compliant then any derivative is non-compliant and it is NOT clear how the recipient should fulfill the obligation because the recipient may not know at all that there is a deficiency. Actually, since it's tied to use it doesn't even need to be a derivative. Any USE of the unmodified original code is out of compliance with CAL. The board decided this wasn't an undue burden. M'kay.
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
