<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/2019 12:04 PM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOuaTBpU3_0wZpOwRABft+EuHkH8aa3Y+XfG8Oi9ja2krw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">It looks like this is the main reason for
objection:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><i><b>No Withholding User Data</b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><i>Throughout any period in which You exercise any of
the permissions granted to You under this License, You
must also provide to any Recipient to whom you provide
services via the Work, a no-charge copy, provided in a
commonly used electronic form, of the Recipient’s User
Data in your possession, to the extent that such User
Data is available to You for use in conjunction with the
Work. </i></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>[snip]<br>
The ownership of the data <i>distracts from the main issue,</i>
however, which is that the license attempts to <i>encumber
data which is processed by the program.</i> This is a
slippery slope which OSI should not embark upon, it ends with
licenses like Kyle's which attempt to encumber all software
processed by the program and force placement of that software
under an Open Source license.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Even more fundamentally than that is that this section does
something that no open source license does (that I'm aware of
anyway), which is to create an obligation just by running an
/unmodified/ program. While this (surprisingly) doesn't violate
any OSD section explicitly, it violates a tenet of open source
software - that the user can run *unmodified* versions without
worrying about legal ramifications (well, copyright wise anyway).
No good will come to opensource if company legal has to get
involved just to run a binary.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOuaTBpU3_0wZpOwRABft+EuHkH8aa3Y+XfG8Oi9ja2krw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I submit that this language still runs awry of OSD#6, since
a business which sequesters customer data to its own advantage
might be obnoxious, but it's still a field of endeavor. And it
runs awry of OSD#9 to the extent that the data can be
considered software.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the data part distracts from the actual issue. For the
sake of argument, replace "User Data" with "modified source to all
open source You use" (this way, we keep it in the source code
arena). Would a license like this pass (making an obligation on
something that isn't a derivative work)?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOuaTBpU3_0wZpOwRABft+EuHkH8aa3Y+XfG8Oi9ja2krw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am the guy on your TV saying "Let's champion data rights
as human rights!" A substantial part of the human race have
seen that IBM spot by now, it runs in Europe and Asia besides
North America. I believe in data rights, but this license is
not the way to achieve them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>+1</p>
<p>Roger Fujii<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>