[License-discuss] Private modification

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Aug 9 01:44:03 UTC 2019

It makes it a lot easier to state, and eventually enforce,
performance-based terms (or Larry's "deployment" based terms), because you
don't have to differentiate when something is performance or deployment vs.
when it is private modification.

I've never seen protection of private modification as essential to Free
Software. I find it difficult to believe that there are significant cases
that should not be seen as performance or deployment.



On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:20 PM Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>

> Branching off from the Libre Source discussion. Not necessarily in reply
> to Russell, but this seems like a good jumping off point.
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:09 PM Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt
>> to restrict private modification.  Many countries are starting to recognise
>> the harm of claiming restrictions on private copying under copyright, so
>> this reads as an attempt to circumvent in contract law a limitation or
>> exception of copyright law.
>> I believe any such attempts to circumvent limits and exceptions to
>> copyright violate the intent of FLOSS even when not clearly understood to
>> violate the language of the OSD.
> What are some good policy arguments in favor of restrictions on private
> modification? My own impression is that these licenses are so onerous as to
> discourage any serious use. Are there any significant projects using the
> RPL or similar licenses?
> Brendan
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190808/7a933d33/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list