On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
> Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that offends you?
>
Obviously, the act which would offend many reasonable software developers
who place reciprocal terms upon their works is not your typing. It is your
creation of
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:15 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
> I am left puzzled how the Affero clauses, which also target SaaS (or what
> RMS likes to call Service as a Software Substitute - SaaSS), passed the
> OSD #6 test?
>
I wasn't around when this license was argued, so other folks can represen
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss
wrote:
> Those are examples. They don't restrict "field of endeavor" to exclude all
> of the very many decisions necessary to carry out your business. It's
> really obvious that SaaS providers have lock-in strategies as a major part
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not
> to
> > write some specific software, does that constitute a restriction on the
> > source code of t
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:32 PM VanL wrote:
>
> There is not a 1:1 correspondence between a tactic and a field of endeavor.
>
I submit that a field of endeavor incorporates all visible details of the
operation of a business. Does that mean there is a 1:1 correspondence
between tactics and fields
There is not a 1:1 correspondence between a tactic and a field of endeavor.
Otherwise, there is no rule - as you describe:
> We have the restrictions that achieve the purpose of Open Source, as
> stated by the definition, and we have *all other restrictions.* The OSD
> specifically says that dist
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM VanL wrote:
> This is a completely fair point, and I apologize for the tone.
>
Well spoken, and accepted of course!
> The CAL does require that a licensee make available the user's data to the
> user, but it does not impose restrictions on how the data is used,
Hi Bruce,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:09 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> 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 a
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:46 AM VanL 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
Hi Bruce,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:05 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> It looks like this is the main reason for objection:
>
> *No Withholding User Data*
>
> *Throughout any period in which You exercise any of the permissions
> granted to You
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:56 AM Richard Fontana
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, this has the effect of replacing the
> language in the earlier version that would have imposed copyleft
> obligations on APIs by choosing not to addres
Hi McCoy,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>Can you explain why this is "problematic" in relation to OSD 9 please
> Richard? To my eyes the phrase "any modifications, elaborations, or
> implementations created by You that contain any licenseable >>portion of
> the Work
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM Simon Phipps wrote:
> That's calling the user data clauses both outside the scope of open source
> licensing and so integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the
> same time.
>
Terms which are outside of the scope of Open Source licensing *are *likely
to
Calling user data "software" is a massive stretch. That's calling the user
data clauses both outside the scope of open source licensing and so
integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the same time. I don't
agree with either, but if I was persuaded by either it would inherently
exclude t
I concur with Richard. To the extent that the user data can be considered
to be software, the license imposes terms upon software which is merely
processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>*From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:06 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License
>>(CAL) Beta 2
>>Can you
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:55 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL wrote:
>
> > 5. Scope of copyleft.
> >
> >
> > - Beta 2 has been reworked to focus on the transfer of "licenseable"
> parts of the Work. This limits the application to what can be properly
> reached by a
It looks like this is the main reason for objection:
*No Withholding User Data*
*Throughout any period in which You exercise any of the permissions granted
to You under this License, You must also provide to any Recipient to whom
you provide services via the Work, a no-charge copy, provided in a
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL wrote:
> 5. Scope of copyleft.
>
>
> - Beta 2 has been reworked to focus on the transfer of "licenseable" parts of
> the Work. This limits the application to what can be properly reached by a
> license, regardless of what the scope of copyleft turns out to be
There has been a lot of noise on this list recently. Bumping this thread to
give anyone who wishes a chance to comment.
Thanks,
Van
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:18 PM VanL wrote:
> Subject: Cryptographic Autonomy License Beta 2
>
> Thanks again to the license-review committee for the response to Be
20 matches
Mail list logo
