[License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

[Pamela Chestek]

On 7/2/2019 11:31 AM, VanL wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek
> <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at 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 simply run the software
>     without the licensee having an obligation. Is it a principle of
>     open source software that one should be able to simply run
>     software free of any obligations?
>
>
> If that is the principle, then the AGPL fails that principle. I do not
> see anywhere an articulable difference between a synthetic performance
> right and one that calls it out on its face.
>
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.

I think part of the issue here is whether the AGPL is a bridge too far
too. In private conversations I hear that position expressed. So then
it's trying to find a way to not go further.

Pam


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190702/42bd9190/attachment.html>