[License-discuss] Extending copyleft and out-of-the-box compliance

[Nigel T]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:15 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:06 AM Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
>> * Henrik Ingo:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that
>> >> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL.
>> >
>> > Note that the CAL specifically does not share this problem. It simply
>> > requires you to provide a copy of the source and user data, but doesn't
>> > mandate a specific user interface or other mechanism for doing so.
>>
>> The CAL has the *exact same problem* if it is applied to software that
>> lacks a built-in mechanism for identifying the relevant sources and
>> the user data (let alone providing a built-in downloading mechanism).
>>
>
> We discussed this last year when reviewing the CAL. It is true that this
> can be an issue for some software. However arguably this is the exact
> opposite problem to what you point out in the AGPL.
>

Nope it's the same problem.  If the original code wasn't compliant then any
derivative is non-compliant and it is NOT clear how the recipient should
fulfill the obligation because the recipient may not know at all that there
is a deficiency.

Actually, since it's tied to use it doesn't even need to be a derivative.
Any USE of the unmodified original code is out of compliance with CAL.

The board decided this wasn't an undue burden.  M'kay.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200320/380c8437/attachment.html>