mpact the
analysis.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:33 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
P. Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:33 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
In our analysis at Bloomberg, we settled on the stricter interpretation for the
reasons hinted at by Bruce; we cannot guarantee that *only* employee
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>Please don't tell me that private modifications are a right fundmental to
>Free Software or Open Source, because they stop being a right under current
>FSF-authored and OSI-accepted licenses if you distribute, deploy, or
>perform.
Private modifications are
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >It's the instantiation of Freedom One: "The freedom to study how the
> >program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish."
A disclosure obligation does not curtail your freedom to change the program
so that it does your
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
(aka “we restrict your freedom to protect freedom”)
>
Well, that's not as paradoxical as you make it sound: consider “we restrict
your freedom [to swing your fist] to protect [other people's] freedom [to
keep their noses intact]”.
John Cowa
John Cowan dixit:
>On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>IMO the right to sequester "private modifications" went obsolete as soon as
>> there was SaaS. It's not in the OSD and I never considered it fundamental
>> to Free
pensource.org]
> >>On Behalf Of VanL
> >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
>
>
>
> >>The difference is that the AGPL is overbroad to w
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
>>The differe
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> It is the computer version of a trade secret.
>
I just can't stretch my mind to encompass that the mission of either Open
Sou
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
IMO the right to sequester "private modifications" went obsolete as soon as
> there was SaaS. It's not in the OSD and I never considered it fundamental
> to Free Software or Open Source.
Hi McCoy,
With regard to most software licensing, including FOSS licensing, network
interaction is not an issue.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>As soon as the employee has an individual license to the modified work,
> the game is up; no other restrictions can be
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:04 AM Christine Hall
wrote:
> I would think that software being accessed only by employees, whether
> through SaaS or by installation on a workstation, constitutes private
> use by the licensee.
There are probably un-litigated questions here. Like, is a consultant
work
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:55 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering
> this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible, so it’s not possible to run
> AGPL-licenced software with security support.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you
Behalf Of *VanL
*>>Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM
*>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
*>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
Let's work it through: The licensee in this case is the corporation: it
is the one exercising the rights
VanL dixit:
>For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a way
Or even: AGPL software to which a not publicly disclosed security
patch has been pre-applied.
This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering
this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
>>Let's w
Hi McCoy, great question.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a
> way that is only accessible to my employees. Per the AGPL, I must give my
> employees code and rights to the modified version, even though the
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:56 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
>>For example:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:42 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> How does the AGPL fail? The right to run unmodified software has no
> burdens in the AGPL. But there is with CAL, the burden of providing data.
>
The AGPL fails, in part, because there is no private right of use for a
modified version.
F
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:31 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
>>On Sat, Jun
On 7/2/2019 11:31 AM, VanL wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek
> mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
>
> [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL]
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been
> modified. Under the CAL, one cannot
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL]
>
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee
> having an obligation. Is it a princi
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek
> wrote:
>
>> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
>> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the softw
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee
> having an obligation. Is it a principle of open source software that one
> should be able to
On 6/29/19 9:08 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>>
>> 2._At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior_.
>> The trigger for meeting license obligations can differ across
>> licenses. The most common, almost univer
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>
> 2._At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior_.
> The trigger for meeting license obligations can differ across
> licenses. The most common, almost universal trigger, is
> distribution of software. T
26 matches
Mail list logo
