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

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.

Extending the hypothetical based on common usage: such a widget would
almost certainly send JavaScript code to the client which would then
reach out to Twitter in order to obtain the desired content, rather
than obtaining the content on the server side. Because of this, the
user of the widget needs to both know whether it qualifies as
*modified* and also how it actually operates (whether there is any
code or active content delivered to the user) in order to properly
assess their compliance burden under any network-copyleft license.