<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I'm taking the liberty of breaking it into four threads for the four
topics, to make it easier (I hope) to keep the comments on each
topic together.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOtpGcetuQgOnK-9bU=sZEgG_HOGxSRdVh_MvzR4MA2zZQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">I have brought this discussion to <span
class="gmail-il">license</span>-<span class="gmail-il">discuss</span>,
as requested by Pam.</div>
<span class="gmail-im" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<div class="gmail_quote"><i><br>
</i></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><i>The mechanism of “public
performance”: The health of an open source software
project relies on a predictable and consistent
understanding of what the <span class="gmail-il">license</span> permits
and what it requires for compliance. However, this <span
class="gmail-il">license</span> uses a term specific
to US law, which is “public performance.”</i></div>
</span>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div>There are a few issues here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. The <span class="gmail-il">license</span> is being
held to a standard for universal applicability of terms of
art that I am not aware has been applied to Open Source
licenses before. That said, <span class="gmail-il">license</span> quality
is important, and this may simply reflect the fact that
more trained attorneys are participating in <span
class="gmail-il">license</span>-review. But where are
globally-accepted terms defined? Shall OSI at least
informally adopt a particular dictionary of Legal English?
Will the objection to local terms of art influence <span
class="gmail-il">license</span> drafters to avoid terms
of art in general, and would that detrimental?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. In the Affero family of licenses, the drafters went
to some lengths to synthesize a public performance right,
I think in the belief that no such thing applied to
software in at least one administration. At the time I
thought that administration was the USA. I heard, during
consideration of this <span class="gmail-il">license</span>,
continuing disagreement among attorneys regarding whether
a protected public performance right exists for software
today in US law. Larry Rosen can give you a lecture on his
use of "External Deployment" in OSL.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. I don't personally find it objectionable for <span
class="gmail-il">license</span> terms requiring source
code distribution to trigger upon public performance. It
seems reasonable in the age of SaaS, and licenses with
some form of this right have been previously accepted by
OSI.</div>
<span class="gmail-im" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>