[License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)

[Bruce Perens]

Oh, I could have so much fun with a question like that. But getting to the
one about *licenses:*

People who write highly reciprocal licenses have, in general, reserved a
territory for people who want to link proprietary software in the form of a
different license: for FSF this is LGPL or GPL-with-exception. If you want
to combine your proprietary software with software under the license they
have reserved for an exclusively Free territory, do not expect them to
cooperate.

I have, and continue to, help companies and their licensed counsel
determine what to do in particular cases. In most cases I suggest a
particular architectural design for the software which avoids gray areas in
the law like this one.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:54 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Nick Weinstock proposed:
> > A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long
> way to clarify this section.
>
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier
> for you to do things they don't want you to do.
>
> Bruce, I'm trying to parse this. Is "doing things" good or bad, legal or
> illegal, ethical or unethical, what FSF wants or doesn't want, what Bruce
> Perens desires or hates?
>
>
>
> I freely implemented APIs from the day I first became a programmer. You
> should tell us all what you mean so I know if I was a saint or a sinner.
>
>
>
> Bravo to Nick! /Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:23 PM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
>
>
>
> Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier
> for you to do things they don't want you to do.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
> nweinsto at qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
> to clarify this section.
>
>
>
> Some additional considerations:
>
> · What about internal vs external APIs, so internal APIs are “intimate”
> but external APIs aren’t, similar to the Kernel’s UAPI?
>
> · Could a library require API callers be under (A)GPLv3?  Or would it
> need to use something like the Kernel’s MODULE_LICENSE interface?
>
> · What is necessary for API extensions to be considered “documented user
> calls and data structures”?  Is it sufficient for the maintainers to
> integrate source modifications even if the accompanying documentation isn’t
> updated?  Is it sufficient for source modifications to be publicly
> submitted to the maintainers?  What if either of those were maintainers of
> a distinct fork rather than the original project?  Is it sufficient for me
> to publish my modified version on my personal GitHub page as a one-time
> fork?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190122/cc2834f1/attachment-0001.html>