[License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

[VanL]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:42 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

>
> How does the AGPL fail? The right to run unmodified software has no
> burdens in the AGPL. But there is with CAL, the burden of providing data.
>

The AGPL fails, in part, because there is no private right of use for a
modified version.

For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a way
that is only accessible to my employees. Per the AGPL, I must give my
employees code and rights to the modified version, even though the analysis
relative to every other license is that this would be a private use.
Further, I cannot in any way prevent my employees from exercising all
rights under the AGPL, because that would be a further restriction. Thus,
the AGPL has no private right of use for any modified version.

In contrast, the CAL allows purely private use by bringing in the concept
of an affiliate. This is the " unlimited right to run" the software. For
purely private use, there is no data requirement, nor source code
requirement. It is only when some aspect of the software is communicated to
a non-affiliated third party that the CAL kicks in. This is a
straightforward extension of the underlying concept of free software: use
this privately, and it is free. Share it with somebody, and you must pass
on the rights you received. It jsut so happens that "sharing the software"
with somebody happens more often by SaaS now, not by actually physically
giving someone a copy.

Note: this is also compatible with McCoy's reformulation below.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190702/6f3c91d5/attachment.html>