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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/23/2019 3:30 PM, VanL wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Pamela Chestek
> <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 8/23/2019 2:31 PM, VanL wrote:
>     > Bruce's - and your - arguments are frequently addressed to what I
>     > might term "data in the large." Bruce made this point explicitly, by
>     > invoking the slippery slope argument. However, should we be looking
>     > more specifically at the CAL's requirements? They were written to be
>     > narrow and closely tied to the actual capability to use the
>     software.
>     Can you walk me through how that's the case? That is the piece I'm
>     missing.
>
>
> Sure. The key concept is that a Recipient must have the full ability
> to self-host or to switch hosts without having to give anything up in
> exercising that right. This is expressed in the "Purpose" in Section 1:
>
> > This License also strives to protect the freedom and autonomy of third
> > parties who receive the Work from you. If any non-affiliated third party
> > receives any part, aspect, or element of the Work from You, this License
> > requires that You provide that third party all the permissions and
> materials
> > needed to independently use and modify the Work without that third party
> > having a loss of data or capability due to your actions.
>
> This frames the rest of the discussion, because the focus is on the
> Recipient-User's ability to fully utilize the work. This focus is made
> operable through the autonomy condition and the definition of User
> Data itself:
>
> > In addition to providing each Recipient the opportunity to have
> Access to the
> > Source Code, You cannot use the permissions given under this License to
> > interfere with a Recipient’s ability to fully use an independent
> copy of the
> > Work generated from the Source Code You provide with the Recipient’s
> own User
> > Data.
> >
> > “_User Data_” means any data that is either an input to or an output
> from the
> > Work, or any data necessary for the functioning of the Work, in
> which the
> > Recipient has an existing ownership interest, or that the Recipient
> has an
> > existing right to possess, or that has been generated for or has been
> > assigned to the Recipient.
>
> I wrote this to be as careful as possible about preserving the
> Recipient's ability to fork, or to self-host, or to choose another
> host, while not reaching anything that the Recipient didn't have a
> right to. As such, it is closely tied to the actual, practical
> experience of running an independent copy of the software.
>
> It is also important that the CAL doesn't require an operator to
> delete copies and it does not encumber the data (in the legal sense).
> There is nothing that provides an end-user Recipient control over the
> use of the data by an operator-user Recipient. Just as with the source
> code, the parties can each go their merry way and never interact
> again. This is again a key distinction that makes the CAL not about
> "all data," but instead about preserving an end-user's ability to run
> the software,
We have been here before. If I understand correctly, your argument is
that one must be allowed you to run the software /with the same data/,
and therefore it is an open source license because it enforces that
condition. Assuming I have understood it correctly, you have answered my
question.

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/20190823/49d6b0f6/attachment.html>