[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Fri May 10 12:31:49 UTC 2019

So…taking the photo site as the example I can:

  1.  Take user image
  2.  Modify it, creating a “modified” or derivative data (denoise, change size, fix white balance, add a watermark, etc)
  3.  Delete the original image from my server
  4.  Have no requirement to return the “modified form” of the data achieving vendor lock in

I am moderately disinclined to try to extend copyleft further in general and certainly not when it doesn’t really do what the submitter wanted it to do in the first place.  I’m pretty sure that whatever I upload to YouTube has been modified since it takes some processing time for it to become live and has been converted to a different codec, down sampled, etc. Photos uploaded to free sites are often made more compressed or smaller in resolution to reduce the amount of storage required.

If, as you state below, there are no access rights to “modified forms” of the data then CAL doesn’t do anything useful for most people.

I also do not believe you have addressed Bruce’s concern that a user of a CAL licensed software may be obligated to return data that the software package makes very difficult to extract and return.  An example might be “I want all my comments and ratings on other people’s photos returned to me”.  The user can still see their comments and ratings on the site but the operator has no easy way of pulling that data out for them because the package doesn’t provide such a mechanism.  They would have to pay someone to either do manual database queries or extend the software to be able to dump that data.

ObDis: speaking only for myself

On 5/9/19, 7:00 AM, "License-review on behalf of VanL" <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of van.lindberg at gmail.com<mailto:van.lindberg at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

On Wed, May 8, 2019, 11:38 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com<mailto:bruce at perens.com>> wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:07 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com<mailto:van.lindberg at gmail.com>> wrote:

The CAL does not contain a concept of "Derived Data," so I am somewhat unsure how to respond to your #2.

The problem is that Anna's data exists in a modified form. It's been digitally signed by Betty along with data added by Betty.

That is irrelevant. There are no rights to "modified forms" of the data.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190510/fa11827a/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list