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

Mon Aug 26 15:00:39 UTC 2019

Pam Chestek wrote:

> 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). 

Pam, now I am confused by you and by the Copyright Office. Forget CAL and forget AGPL. If a normal GPL program on your computer causes my computer to display a red square, have you distributed your GPL program to my computer? That sounds like a real reach for copyleft, even for a sophisticated API that makes computers do things. I now worry about that so-called "general rule" for GPL email programs! 

I think Van's description of network interaction is much more logical and much less frightening about overreach of copyleft. Distributing the code is what counts, not distributing the data or the output. /Larry

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 6:05 AM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

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 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). 
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 <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com> 
www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190826/48a6a6a9/attachment-0001.html>