I concur with Richard. To the extent that the user data can be considered to be software, the license imposes terms upon software which is merely processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > >>*From:* License-discuss [mailto: > license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Simon Phipps > *>>Sent:* Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:06 AM > *>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy > License (CAL) Beta 2 > > > > > > > > >>Can you explain why this is "problematic" in relation to OSD 9 please > Richard? To my eyes the phrase "any modifications, elaborations, or > implementations created by You that contain any licenseable >>portion of > the Work" clearly bounds the effect to derivations of the licensed software > and not to unrelated software distributed alongside. > > That was my reaction as well. > > Although I dislike use of the noun “elaborations” (what is that intended > to encompass?) and assume “implementations” is intended to capture a > reciprocal effect via patents? > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
