* Henrik Ingo: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that >> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL. > > Note that the CAL specifically does not share this problem. It simply > requires you to provide a copy of the source and user data, but doesn't > mandate a specific user interface or other mechanism for doing so.
The CAL has the *exact same problem* if it is applied to software that lacks a built-in mechanism for identifying the relevant sources and the user data (let alone providing a built-in downloading mechanism). My problem with these licenses is *not* that the requirements are particularly onerous (maybe they are in practice, but so is the notification requirement in the HPND licenses, it seems), but that the license is so vague in what is actually required. A typical example is a library licensed under the AGPL that does not handle anything network-related. What are the source code distribution requirements for a program that happens to have a network-related component? (This is where the “GPL for open core” part comes from—any serious commercial user will pay for different, clearer license terms.) If these programs had a built-in compliance mechanism, it would at least become clear what the author intended. But even if a program licensed under the CAL had all those built-in facilities, using the software would still not be automatically compliant, because any user must make arrangements for complying with the license *after* any use of the software has ended (where any built-in access mechanisms have stopped working, of course). Not sure why people keep bringing up the CAL. I did not mention it. _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
