Calling user data "software" is a massive stretch. That's calling the user data clauses both outside the scope of open source licensing and so integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the same time. I don't agree with either, but if I was persuaded by either it would inherently exclude the other.
S. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:34 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > 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? >> > > -- > 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