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

[Pamela Chestek]

Combining your two emails.

On 8/25/2019 10:12 PM, VanL wrote:
> Hi Pam,
>
> You are interpreting the CAL beyond where it would go. In particular:
>
>     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.
>
>
> The key question is whether this red square is part of the expression
> of the downloaded code, and if that expression is sent to your website
> visitor.
>
> If the red square is just the output of the code, then you don't need
> to do anything. The CAL does not impose any restrictions on you
> whatsoever.
>
> If you send "red square generating code" to your website visitor, then
> the CAL requires you to provide source code.
>
> This is actually identical to what you would be required to do under
> the vanilla GPL.
>
> Also, work regard to my comments about the AGPL: I am simply
> commenting on interpretations I have seen in the wild.
>
> For example: 
> https://github.com/algorand/go-algorand/blob/master/COPYING_FAQ
>
>
>
>
and

> Reading again, I think I need to further develop this point.
>
> Under most circumstances, the CAL would not reach the output of a
> program. For example, if you had an image generator program (like your
> red square) the CAL would not apply to the output. If you had a CAL
> licensed Emacs, the CAL would not apply to the programs you wrote.
>
> The CAL applies when some aspect of the program itself is sent to a
> third party. 
>
> So I can't say that the CAL would never apply to your widget. It
> depends on the implementation. But for your red square program, it
> would probably not apply.

You have described "distributing." What, then, do "displaying,"
"communicating," or "making perceptible" "any part, aspect, or element
of the Work" mean if they don't mean simply having a red square show up
on my website? If I have CAL-licensed code that provides instructions
for creating a red square on a web page, how is that not "making
perceptible" the Work?

Have you forgone your theory that making an API available is
"displaying," "communicating," or "making perceptible" "any part,
aspect, or element of the Work"? No one is getting the literal code
there either.  Why is the display of a red square not just an
abstraction of the literal code in the same way an API is?

More importantly, why do you think a court would necessarily exclude it
as a possible interpretation? For starters, I am only stating the view
of the U.S. Copyright Office: "As a general rule, a computer program and
the screen displays generated by that program are considered the same
work, because the program code contains fixed expression that produces
the screen displays." Copyright Compendium § 721.10(A).

I was referring to your position that installation and configuration of
software creates a derivative work. I don't disagree with you that it's
a plausible argument that copyleft can reach new implementations of your
API under the CAL or the GPL.

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/20190826/52aa756f/attachment.html>