[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

[Bruce Perens]

If they hosted comments on their WordPress blog, and did not approve some
comments but kept them in the approval queue, this would be sufficient to
activate the data terms.

I agree with Nigel.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:53 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 9:18 PM Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A SaaS license is intended to be applied to software that is seen and
>> used by third parties.
>>
>> It is disingenuous for you to imply otherwise.
>>
>> Many non-developers have set up their own content management system like
>> Wordpress on their own servers.  If Wordpress was CAL instead of GPL none
>> of those users would be able to use WordPress because it’s unlikely that
>> WordPress is fully compliant under the terms of 4.2.
>>
>
>
> This is an illuminating example. If WordPress was CAL licensed, then all
> those people hosting their own blogs on WordPress would have to provide a
> link to or copy of the source code they were using, but that is it. Why?
> Because they would not be hosting the user data of random readers. The
> outcome would be essentially the same as the AGPL.
>
> Someone would only need to provide additional user data if they did more
> than host their own blog, but instead moved into the blog hosting business.
>
> Thanks,
> Van
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191211/0f82c8da/attachment-0001.html>