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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/23/2019 10:39 AM, VanL wrote:
> For example, if your Twitter widget only worked on your server, and it
> didn't communicate any aspect of itself to a visitor to your website,
> the CAL wouldn't reach it. You would have no compliance burden at all.

> By the standards of the AGPL, the twitter widget is "Interactive."
> Under an equivalent reading of the license, it is also modified.

How do you reconcile these two statements? It's a widget that displays a
Twitter feed. A user only views it. How is it not "displayed" under the
CAL yet there is a remote interaction under the AGPL? What is the
interaction?

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/e10f7ca1/attachment.html>