<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:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
span.gmail-m-4483418839122739109gmail-im
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_-4483418839122739109gmail-im;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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"><a name="_____replyseparator"></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>>From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>VanL<br>
<b>>>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:31 AM<br>
<b>>>To:</b> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br>
<b>>>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>></span>On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-m-4483418839122739109gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">[snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL]</span></span><span style="color:#500050"><br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>></span>If that is the principle, then the AGPL fails that principle. I do not see anywhere an articulable difference between a synthetic performance right and one that calls it out on its face.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">AGPL has two conditions whereby “running” of the code triggers source obligations, in Section 13:<br>
1. “you modify the Program”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">2. “[other] users[are] interacting with it remotely through a computer network”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">It doesn’t require that any running of the code triggers (or modification of the code
without network access by other users triggers) source obligations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">I think most people on this list using the terminology “running” to try to capture
the concept of Freedom Zero, namely:<br>
<br>
“<span style="background:white">The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white">Now, I think if one were to be perfectly accurate about what most
people think Freedom Zero encompasses, it would be “the freedom to privately run and modify the program, as you wish, for any purpose, without any further obligations on you.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white">I tend to think (and have argued on the OSI lists) that that concept
is a fundamental part of the OSD even if not expressly stated, and that licenses that try to impose obligations on the user for private running or private modification of a program probably don’t meet an implied understanding of the OSD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;background:white">I will concede, however, that arguing that things exist by implication
is not my favorite argument and one could construct a literalist interpretation of the OSD that says a license that imposes obligations on users by the mere private execution of code, or private modifications without sharing, meets the OSD. Which, I believe,
was the argument being advanced at least for the SSPL, LZPL, and I think the CAL.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>