<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Gil Yehuda wrote:<br>> </span><span style='color:black'>I wondered why we don't have an A/LGPL (or A/MPL, A/EPL) that addresses the "non-conveyed software gap" but also limits the scope of copyleft to the work itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>We do. OSL 3.0. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In all other respects, I agree with Gil's email.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>> </span><span style='color:black'>it feels like kissing with eyes open, looking around</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bruce Perens also reminded me.... It feels like I did while serving on the GPLv3 drafting committee. It was a difficult experience, but it turned out better than GPLv2. No intimacy remains, however....<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gil Yehuda via License-discuss<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:47 AM<br><b>To:</b> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Cc:</b> Gil Yehuda <gyehuda@verizonmedia.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:black'>(Forgive the resend, my email address changed).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>A license with parameters such that end users are advised to first engage a legal expert to help craft a usage architecture, seems to be lacking completion. Licenses should speak for themselves. I'm glad there is a community of informed lawyers I can find and call upon when needed for open source issues. I wish the licenses were so clear the need for these services were less. A cynic would suggest that new licenses could be written with even less clarity by lawyers who want to secure more future business. I'm not that cynic.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>A license such that "we all know what it means" but some of us are still worried that a court reads into the text a meaning that we were sure was not intended, but does fit the plain meaning (e.g. interpreting intimacy in an overly broad way than the expressed feelings of people on a mailing list), seems to be incomplete (albeit the reality in law). An open source license is supposed to invite use and adoption under terms that the user can understand. It should not invite doubt and speculation about how to call an API or driver to avoid the unintended situation where a product is accidentally considered part of a copyleft scope. (And thus commercial licenses should be sold to exchange value for money, not to reduce concerns of license parameters.)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>I respect the care involved in crafting the license we have today. As we encounter new product architectures that might not have been anticipated by the drafters of the licenses, we need to refine the parameters. I wondered why we don't have an A/LGPL (or A/MPL, A/EPL) that addresses the "non-conveyed software gap" but also limits the scope of copyleft to the work itself. Moreover, I still am humored by the term <i>intimacy</i> since it usually implies the invitation to know each other without doubts, and in this case, it feels like kissing with eyes open, looking around.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#674EA7'>Gil Yehuda</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:39 AM John Cowan <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>It's not fair to blame FSF for what the court did in an entirely unrelated case.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On the contrary, alas. The FSF's GPL FAQ says:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Of course, data structures themselves can't be interchanged over a pipe, only representations of them. ASCII text giving information about available print queues is just as much a representation of the system's undocumented internal data structures as anything else. (Dr. Google informs me that NET PRINT is no more.) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>And I think it is fair to blame the FSF for introducing an undefined term, not known to be a term of art, into the GPL3, and thus putting a weapon into the hands of those who use the GPL solely for commercial advantage and/or employ the SCO business model.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Nor is it fair to say that FSF wants to sue you until your eyes bubble.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I thought that using a classic P.G. Wodehouse-ism would be enough to indicate that I wasn't _entirely_ serious. Though now that I look it up, it was Asimov (who is known to have been a PGW fan) who used it in connection with a threatened lawsuit, _God v. Satan_, over Satan's delinquent payments for upkeep on the Heaven-Hell Bridge. Of course God is doomed to lose because he can't get a lawyer. :-)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Rick Moen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>There is little<br>reason to think judges will ever be impressed by coders' ideas<br>concerning internal vs. external APIs, different sorts of linking,<br>wrappers, remote calls, etc. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Well, some reason. Industry usage is an accepted source of the<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>meaning of undefined terms in contracts, along with common usage,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>prior dealings, etc. The trouble is that "intimate data communication"<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>_has_ no industry usage.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>-- <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>John Cowan <a href="http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@ccil.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>After fixing the Y2K bug in an application:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> WELCOME TO <censored><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>_______________________________________________<br>License-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>