<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 6/29/19 9:08 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4a513b7d-9be7-728d-2aee-3f8b67e7d302@chesteklegal.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<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"><span
class="gmail-im" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">2. <u>At what point the licensor
can oblige licensee behavior</u>. <br>
The trigger for meeting <span class="gmail-il">license</span> obligations
can differ across licenses. The most common, almost
universal trigger, is distribution of software. The AGPL <span
class="gmail-il">license</span> triggers upon allowing
network interaction with modified software. The CAL <span
class="gmail-il">license</span> implements a new
trigger, which is the obligation to make unmodified
software available to anyone interacting with an interface
for the software. In other words, someone might install a
program that allows for interaction with the website
(perhaps providing a webform to sign up for a newsletter)
and would now be obliged to make the source code available
to any person who filled out the webform. <a
class="gmail-m_-3438543155154543484gmail-m_-8747199028017241789moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004113.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/<span
class="gmail-il">license</span>-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004113.html</a> The <span
class="gmail-il">License</span> Review Committee does
not believe that there has been adequate airing of this
issue from a variety of viewpoints on the <span
class="gmail-il">license</span>-review discussion about
this aspect of the <span class="gmail-il">license</span>,
so has not reached a conclusion about at what point
imposing <span class="gmail-il">license</span> obligations
is appropriate. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<div>I'm not sure I agree with the committee here, this is the
public performance issue and a <i>synthetic </i>public
performance right exists in an accepted <span class="gmail-il">license</span>.</div>
<span class="gmail-im" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<div><br>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been
modified. Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without
the licensee having an obligation. Is it a principle of open source
software that one should be able to simply run software free of any
obligations?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>