[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 21:49:46 UTC 2019
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:15 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2. The AGPL is ambiguous in its application in a corporate context. For
> example, if a modified version of an AGPL program is used within a company,
> and not provided to any outsider, do employees have rights to the code to
> the modified version? I would argue that they do, and that the employer
> cannot prevent the spread of trade secret AGPL programs because to do so
> would be an additional restriction.
> You're not the only one; this is how our policy was decided, and we
> don't even bother treating modified and unmodified versions
> differently. If a user has direct access to the services provided by
> an AGPL-covered work, then as far as our policy is concerned we are
> obligated to provide the source code under those terms. (In this
> context 'we' and 'our' refer to my employer, Bloomberg, where I helped
> formulate this policy). I do wish that the license more directly
> addressed this situation, though.
Do you mean that you wish that the CAL addressed this situation? If so,
take a look at the standard-ish definition of "affiliate" as well as the
clauses associated with "public performance" which were drafted in part
with this issue in mind. Please let me know if you see ambiguity in the CAL
similarly to the AGPL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review