[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Mon Apr 29 14:19:05 UTC 2019
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 2:35 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> Hi Van,
> Thanks, and I appreciate your indulgence while I struggle with how the
> license is architected. So the design of the license (and perhaps the goal)
> is that (1) any software written to offer the same APIs has to be under a
> Compatible Open Source License and (2) the user's data is portable. Is that
Yes, that is correct. It also addresses the customary derivative work
situation as well, but you have identified the two primary distinctions.
> If the Supreme Court were to hold that there is no copyright in API's,
> what happens to Public Performance under the CAL? Does it still survive?
> The copyright right at issue in Google v. Oracle is the right of
> reproduction, not public performance. As the definition is written, I
> believe it does survive. So writing software to offer the same APIs would
> be subject to the terms of the CAL, even though the Supreme Court said it
> was lawful. Do you agree?
This analysis seems right to me. I'll note, though, that I think the chance
of the Supreme Court saying that there was no copyright whatsoever in APIs
is slim to none - the best I am expecting is a wide practical exception.
The CAL also hooks into patent rights - the rights to use and sell, in
particular - as a secondary means of enforcing the copyleft provisions.
That means that for a patent-holding open source licensor, the patent grant
aligns with the copyright grant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review