[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

[VanL]

Hi Pam,

Thanks for the hypothetical.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:10 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

>
> As a complete duffer in software, this provision is troublesome to me. It
> goes well beyond offering a service. This is the same example I used on the
> last review of this license, so forgive me for repeating it. Suppose I put
> up my homemade website and want a widget that displays my Twitter feed. I
> look at my options among the various addons and extensions and pick one
> that looks like it's just the ticket. Woe is me if I picked one under the
> CAL. Having the widget on my website is not a private use and so I have to
> make the source code available, plus provide notices and attribution on my
> website for the widget. I suspect anyone would be surprised that they had
> incurred such a burden.
>

- Is your concern here with the requirement to provide source code, or with
the user data/user autonomy provisions? The source code can be provided via
"easy-to-find hyperlink to an Internet location" with the necessary source
code and disclosures.
- You stated that you are putting in the widget to quote your own tweets.
So would there be any "Recipient’s User Data in your possession" to be
worried about? If it would just be your own tweets, then no, correct?
- If you are referring to other's tweets, then do you have them "in your
possession", or are you just displaying what is provided by Twitter via
their API?
- If for some reason you have them in your possession - say as a local JSON
cache - and the person who wrote them asks for a copy, then would it be an
excessive burden to email the JSON file to the person?

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/a2907aaa/attachment.html>