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

[Christine Hall]

I don't see how this is similar at all to requiring the user to make 
data collected by an application available.

Your TiVo example still refers to being able to run the software, so 
it's directly related to the software. The user data collected and 
stored by is a product of the software that in no way affects the 
software's usability.

I think your goals are laudable, but I don't think they should fall 
within the reach of open source software licensing.

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

On 7/2/19 3:02 PM, VanL wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:44 PM Christine Hall <christine at fossforce.com 
> <mailto:christine at fossforce.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>      > 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.
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
> This is quite a good analogy. Yes, these things relate back to the 
> software itself, but note how they relate: They allow a user to modify 
> and use the software *in the desired context.* This language was 
> included because various organizations said "you have the right to 
> modify and run the code, you just can't run the modified code in the 
> context of the device itself." For example, modified TiVo software had 
> the capability of being run on different hardware, just not on a TiVo 
> itself. Note that this also coincidentally denied users the ability to 
> use the recordings made by the TiVo (the "user data").
> 
> This language was added to emphasize that part of software freedom was 
> the ability to use the software in the same or a significantly similar 
> context. It was not enough to be able to theoretically be able to run 
> the software somewhere else; you had to allow users to access the same 
> hardware (and coincidentally, the same user data) with a modified version.
> 
> The data portability provision is similar. Is it possible meaningfully 
> exercise the right to fork, if as a result of forking, you lose access 
> to all your data?
> 
> Thanks,
> Van
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>