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.