[License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)

[Bruce Perens]

Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier for
you to do things they don't want you to do.

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nweinsto at qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
> to clarify this section.
>
>
>
> Some additional considerations:
>
>    - What about internal vs external APIs, so internal APIs are
>    “intimate” but external APIs aren’t, similar to the Kernel’s UAPI?
>    - Could a library require API callers be under (A)GPLv3?  Or would it
>    need to use something like the Kernel’s MODULE_LICENSE interface?
>    - What is necessary for API extensions to be considered “documented
>    user calls and data structures”?  Is it sufficient for the maintainers to
>    integrate source modifications even if the accompanying documentation isn’t
>    updated?  Is it sufficient for source modifications to be publicly
>    submitted to the maintainers?  What if either of those were maintainers of
>    a distinct fork rather than the original project?  Is it sufficient for me
>    to publish my modified version on my personal GitHub page as a one-time
>    fork?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190122/4cc9f92c/attachment.html>