<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Licenses clearly intended to prevent combination with any commercial/proprietary work is clearly not open source.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Licenses clearly intended to prevent commercial/proprietary derivatives can be open source.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If an API isn’t a bright line for defining open source then your definition is incorrect because that’s just
<b>use</b> of a literal copy which any open source license should allow for. It’s freedom 0.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Using</b> a developer provided API shouldn’t create any triggerable “intimacy” and any definition/criteria that implies such is clear overreach and should NOT be part any open source criteria.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Speaking for myself,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nigel</div>
<br>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Tuesday, Jan 22, 2019, 11:18 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Cc: </b><span>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:02 PM Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_7405018080961250978WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">What particular architectural design do you recommend? I want an architecture that always permits a programmer to implement her own software in accordance with a published API, under any FOSS or proprietary
license she chooses, and thereby let her software become intimate with some other open source software.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">No FOSS license that prohibits that is truly open source!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204); padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"></a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Oh, come on, Larry. If you want to write software and combine it with software under a license that is clearly intended to
<i>prevent </i>combination with proprietary software, you are entirely free to use their API under a license compatible with their chosen one and release it as their terms require. There is nothing about Open Source that says they have to give a free ride to
anyone, no less deep-pocket companies that are extremely jealous of their <i>own
</i>intellectual property rights.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you want to make a product, I will discuss with you how to resolve the issue for the particular problem you have, which mostly means you
<i>won't </i>be creating a derivative work of any kind, but will be architecting a bright line between the free and proprietary pieces that would be extremely clear to any court.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>