[License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

[Christine Hall]

And all of these things relate back to the software itself, do they not? 
User data collected by an application is not necessary to have to 
successfully use the software.

Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com

On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> *>>From:*License-discuss 
> [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL
> *>>Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:13 AM
> *>>To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation 
> under an open source license
> 
>>>Thought experiment: What about Lisp? Or DSLs?
> 
>>>It is a fundamental element of LISP that "data" and "program" are 
> expressed (or expressable) using the same syntax. Also, various DSLs are 
> expressible using program code (see, e.g., Ansible, JSON). So does that 
> mean that the scope of a license changes depending on how you look at it?
> 
>>>A bit more theoretically, does "software" comprise its input and 
> configuration data? It seems like that can be included in the GPLv3 
> concept of corresponding source.
> 
> I think a better analogy would be the inclusion of the Installation 
> Information requirement in the *GPLv3 family of licenses.  That imposes 
> an obligation to provide data which is potentially completely divorced 
> from the executable code distributed under the license, and thus the 
> source code that must be provided.  For example, a checksum or other 
> hardware-instantiated feature which one needs to know in order to 
> reinstall modified executables derived from the *GPLv3 license source.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>