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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/25/19 10:16 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Sorry but your conclusion is not correct:
>
> 1. Your obligation doesn't arise with downloading the code, but rather
> because you are putting it in your website where it gets distributed
> to viewers of your website. This is stuff every web developer needs to
> know to do their job.
> 2. I for one certainly wish that copyright legislation was more
> friendly to duffers (I don't know what that word means, really...) and
> less biased to favor big corporations who use every opportunity to
> maximize their powers. But I don't see how any of this is Van's fault.
>
> I'm assuming here that your example is the common case of embedding a
> piece of JavaScript in your website to create such a widget. Your
> example could be used to criticize every open source license down to
> 3-clause BSD, as they all create some legal obligation to the web
> developer in your example.
>
> If instead your intent was to criticize CAL's use of words like
> "aspect" and "perceptible", then I''m fully with you because I think
> those seem like attempts of claiming rights beyond the licensed code.
> (And in particular, there may be a goal of preventing compatible
> competing clean room implementations.) But if this is the case then
> your example needs to make it clearer that you're describing a case
> where no code was transmitted to users of your website. (Perhaps using
> some other word than widget is a start.)
>
> For example: Your website has a red background and the code you used
> for it is licensed under the CAL. My website also has a red
> background. Did I make an aspect of your website perceptible on my
> website?
>
A duffer is someone who plays golf as a hobby. But they will play badly,
because golf is not something you can do well without a lot of practice.
But they still enjoy playing golf and go out there and enjoy playing badly.

Assume I downloaded code to my web server that creates a display on my
website, a red square. It was easy for me to install, I just went to
WordPress Plugins and, voila! I do not distribute any code to the viewer
of my website, no Javascript, nothing. It is just displayed on my
website. (Maybe that's not a realistic hypothetical, I don't know - does
everything have Javascript?) Under the CAL, just because when you look
at my website you see the red square, I have to provide the source code,
the attribution, the license, etc. So I have to figure out how to make
that all happen on my website when all I know how to do is download
plugins because I'm a duffer.

My point is this is well beyond the AGPL. For the AGPL, two more things
have to happen before I have to provide the source code, I have to have
modified the code and a user has to be able to interact with the
program. For those who think that the AGPL is too far, or the outermost
appropriate reach for copyleft, the CAL is beyond that.   

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com