> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 08:33:02AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > It's not really clear how the additional sentence modifies "these > requirements". It does not modify "these requirements" at all. It states, that there are no exceptions to providing source code to the user in every case. (SaaS is only one example) > I suppose it suggests that the author equates "running > in a SaaS configuration" as equivalent to "redistribution". This > degree of restrictiveness is difficult to reconcile with either GPLv2 > or GPLv3. There is no restrictiveness with respect to using the software, if source code is provided to the user. > I am also mindful of the interpretive principle I used to occasionally > espouse, essentially that we should scrutinize especially closely the > conditions of any bespoke copyleft license (or standard copyleft > license apparently supplemented by bespoke informal restrictive > interpretive statements), where the business model of the licensor is > some variant of 'proprietary relicensing', as (it seems) here. Cryptlib is dual-licensed. Only the GPL-compatible license is used not the commercial one, which is independent from the license used for cryptlib in Fedora. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
