[License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI
bruce at perens.com
Sat May 25 18:24:53 UTC 2019
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:07 AM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.chestek at opensource.org> wrote:
> in the Board discussions about this communication no one ever said that
> there should be a limit on the number of emails and I expect no one ever
> will (or at least I would object to it). I know in an earlier email you
> mentioned this concept also, although I don't know where it came from.
Josh's complaint on this list.
> As Van has argued, it is quite close to the policies underlying
I looked through Affero GPL3 and other approved licenses with
anti-Tivoization clauses. They don't apply to the passive user - a user who
does not modify the software. As I have stated, the passive user shouldn't
need a lawyer to use the software. Van's license presents significant terms
that apply to passive users and do require them to resort to counsel IMO.
Finally, Pamela, your response to me has been to label my words as "simply
not true" and "isn't true". Obviously I believe these things to be true and
your outright rejection of my viewpoint in this way goes beyond the
demeanor I have usually made use of on this list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss