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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/23/2019 11:30 AM, VanL wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:58 AM Pamela Chestek
> <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto: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.

So you are saying that the html generated by the Work and displayed on a
webpage is not the Work or a "modification, elaboration or
implementation" of the Work and accordingly also subject to the CAL?

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/ab16b53c/attachment.html>