<div dir="ltr">Just as an exercise, take any Open Source you like, tell an AI to do a clean-room re-implementation, put it under a different license, and wonder how much meaning copyright and licensing have for Open Source any logner. For example, I did this yesterday with Codec2 for technical, not licensing, reasons, to make it use fixed-point instead of floating point. The resulting CODEC is within 0.99996 conformance with the original for its bitstream. See <a href="https://github.com/BrucePerens/hams_open/tree/main/daemons/ham_digital_modes/src/codec2_3200">https://github.com/BrucePerens/hams_open/tree/main/daemons/ham_digital_modes/src/codec2_3200</a><div><br></div><div>I started filing patents. I have 46! I don't see that any other protection is valid for Open Source any longer.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks</div><div><br></div><div> Bruce</div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 3:21\u202fPM Viatrix via License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello license-discuss,<br>
<br>
Is there a license or combination of licenses which apply to the<br>
following situation, and if not, would it be a good idea to create such<br>
a license?<br>
Situation: Someone writes a software library, wishes to mandate its<br>
source code be available to users including users over a network (ą la<br>
AGPL), but otherwise wishes to make it weak-copyleft.<br>
<br>
I cannot find a license which would always satisfy this.<br>
Licenses I have considered but which may present problems:<br>
<br>
\u2022 AGPL with a classpath exception: Potential for incompatibility if the<br>
library itself includes code under a license incompatible with AGPL.<br>
\u2022 EUPL: Potential for a derived work to no longer be beholden to the<br>
network use requirement.<br>
<br>
If creating a new license would be a good idea, I was thinking a<br>
modification of the MPL 2.0 would work.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div></div></div></div>