<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/27/2019 10:30 AM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49972b09-6422-c091-b0ff-ac8a5df6fa5f@chesteklegal.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/23/19 10:15 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEPU8dRtUcVA1MwJmQ_HACxQXt30M4SUULiyfsGDC84i1Q@mail.gmail.com">There
is a particular way of locking down a program that is available
in hashchain applications; that particular method is addressed
in a single clause. That is exactly like anti-Tivoization (which
is also addressed in a single clause inspired by the GPLv3, and
the anti-circumvention, which is addressed in a third clause -
again parallel to the GPLv3).</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/23/19 11:55 PM, Bruce Perens via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs4NZYS=0rH7cFevoZGgQd1-pRjpbGtxWyD39+P9AhwwQ@mail.gmail.com">Here
you add data to the terms, which none of our other licenses
require, and you require it of <i>users </i>of the program who
are not developers. </blockquote>
<br>
Bruce does identify what strikes me as a distinction between your
section 2.3 and the anti-Tivozation clause. The anti-Tivozation
clause says that where object code is conveyed on certain devices
where the device is transferred in a way equivalent to ownership,
then you must give me what is needed to install and execute a
modified version of the code on the device. That all relates to my
right to modify code in a meaningful way. Your provision simply
says that someone can get a copy of their data, as Bruce points
out a burden that falls on someone who is only running the
software. So I don't consider them analogous.<br>
</blockquote>
Van,<br>
<br>
Do you have a comment on this? I share Bruce's concern that Section
2.3 is outside the scope of open source licenses. I'm not buying
your argument that it's the same as anti-Tivoization, for the reason
I described above. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>