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

[VanL]

Hi Larry,

I don't think you are confused. The issue is that the hypothetical is
underspecified. To make a determination as to whether/how the CAL would
apply, a person needs to assume implementation details that are not given.
Thus, for the "red square" plugin, it is both possible that the CAL would
give rise to obligations, and possible that it would not; it depends on the
technical details of what exactly is happening.

Thanks,
Van


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:15 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 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
> www.chesteklegal.com
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190828/5544a35c/attachment.html>