<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Henrik,<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:48 PM Henrik Ingo <<a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi">henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</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"><div dir="ltr"><div>For my taste the new text is even too narrow. The whole point of software freedom is that a derived work need not be "substantially identical" to its ancestor. But from a practical point of view that is still sufficient to guarantee that I can get a copy of my own data. Once I'm in possession of it, I can then proceed to also use it for less identical use cases. I understand that this very narrow text is necessary now to make it clear to everyone that this principle is well within the sphere of the OSD.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You have the right of it here: "
Once I'm in possession of it, I can then proceed to also use it for less identical use cases." The purpose here is to help identify what must be provided by a licensee. It does not limit what a Recipient can do with the code+data once it is in the Recipient's possession.
</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The other issue that was widely discussed, not the least by myself, were a couple individual words like "aspect" and "made perceptible" that make sense from a copyright law point of view, but are unusual words in a software license. I had argued that it's unclear what exactly could be claimed by those words and that they seem to present more of a risk than benefit. I was curious to hear either from Van or Pam whether you discussed this issue in the latest round at all? At minimum, I would hope to see an FAQ entry explaining what can and cannot be targeted by those words. After all, I have frequently asked this question ;-)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, I think you have the right of it: the words "make sense from a copyright law point of view." I have resisted providing a gloss on this language because it is important that the words stand for themselves - after all, that is how a court would (primarily) interpret the license. My subjective intention is largely irrelevant.</div><div><br></div><div>Nevertheless, I have tried to make it so that even if those particular words may be "unusual... in a software license," that they are easily and readily comprehensible so that someone would be unlikely to be surprised by anything a judge might end up saying about how those were interpreted.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Van<br></div><div> </div></div></div>