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

[VanL]

Hi Pam,

I see that I was not clear. I was implicitly referring to two different
scenarios.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:58 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
In this scenario, the widget runs entirely server side. The widget creates
an output that is consumed by a visitor to the website, but the widget
itself does not interact with the user and does not include any of its own
expression in the output.

The result under this scenario is that no compliance actions are required,
neither under the CAL nor under the AGPL.


>
> By the standards of the AGPL, the twitter widget is "Interactive." Under
> an equivalent reading of the license, it is also modified.
>
>
This is scenario #2. The widget directly interacts with the user in some
way to deliver the Twitter content. This is the "most unfavorable scenario"
for the CAL that I was referring to.

But under this "unfavorable" scenario, the result across the AGPL and CAL
is again consistent. The request-response required for your browser to
fetch and receive the widget output is the "network interaction" that
triggers AGPL compliance. The communication of the widget expression (the
"response" of the HTTP request-response) is what triggers CAL compliance.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/33e509ee/attachment-0001.html>