[License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant

[Josh Berkus]

On 10/24/2018 12:54 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> None of your arguments are making any sense here.  Wanna try again?
> 
> OK, that sometimes happens to people at my age! Thanks for the warning....
> 
> None of the FSF statements you cited about "mere use" being an exception to the GPL copyleft requirements include a definition of "mere use"? That leaves us all legally perplexed as to "agency," "subcontracting" or "scope of control." 

I didn't use any of the words "agency," "subcontracting" or "scope of
control", so I still don't understand what you're asking.

> 
> And you should define "license Ragnarök."

A state of universal F.U.D. in which nobody can produce or use any open
source software because nobody can figure out how to do so without
conflicting with someone's license.

IIRC, I used the term before when pointing out the shortcomings of the
Zero Public License.


-- 
Josh Berkus