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

[Lawrence Rosen]

Pam Chestek wrote:
> The copyleft/source code requirements of GPL are implicated on distribution, not on display. It's not an issue under the GPL.

 

Pam, I remain confused. Perhaps I have not read and understood clearly the recent flood of emails about CPL. How does a display of code differ from a distribution of code? These are both distributions. Neither of those alternatives have anything to do with the display of a red box on your screen, unless you received code to display a red box rather than an order to use your own code to do the display.

 

I addressed this issue in OSL 3.0, which also deals with network distribution. The mere distribution of the result of a program or the data used to create that result does not create a distribution of the program itself. Is CPL different? 

 

As I understand it, open source has to do with distribution of software, not distribution of other things. The apparent requirement of CPL that a recipient of software must also receive his/her own data that he/she provided to run that software is a license condition that apparently also must be met. That by itself isn't copyleft, merely a (perhaps reasonable) license burden.

 

Am I still confused? Van and you, please help me understand. 

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:58 AM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

 

 

On 8/26/2019 11:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

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! 


No, I haven't distributed it, I have only displayed it. The copyleft/source code requirements of GPL are implicated on distribution, not on display. It's not an issue under 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/20190827/9a009b4d/attachment.html>