[License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

[Smith, McCoy]

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:31 AM
>>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations


>>On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
[snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL]

I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified. Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee having an obligation. Is it a principle of open source software that one should be able to simply run software free of any obligations?

>>If that is the principle, then the AGPL fails that principle. I do not see anywhere an articulable difference between a synthetic performance right and one that calls it out on its face.

AGPL has two conditions whereby “running” of the code triggers source obligations, in Section 13:
1. “you modify the Program”
2.  “[other] users[are] interacting with it remotely through a computer network”

It doesn’t require that any running of the code triggers (or modification of the code without network access by other users triggers) source obligations.

I think most people on this list using the terminology “running” to try to capture the concept of Freedom Zero, namely:

“The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.”

Now, I think if one were to be perfectly accurate about what most people think Freedom Zero encompasses, it would be “the freedom to privately run and modify the program, as you wish, for any purpose, without any further obligations on you.”

I tend to think (and have argued on the OSI lists) that that concept is a fundamental part of the OSD even if not expressly stated, and that licenses that try to impose obligations on the user for private running or private modification of a program probably don’t meet an implied understanding of the OSD.

I will concede, however, that arguing that things exist by implication is not my favorite argument and one could construct a literalist interpretation of the OSD that says a license that imposes obligations on users by the mere private execution of code, or private modifications without sharing, meets the OSD.  Which, I believe, was the argument being advanced at least for the SSPL, LZPL, and I think the CAL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190702/43c85438/attachment-0001.html>