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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Fri May 10 16:58:39 UTC 2019

That makes sense.  Simple modifications don’t convey any rights.

Is the implication then that I can request any data for which I have ownership interest?  I have photos for which I have a copyright license but the original photographer still owns the copyright.  How does the operator tell the difference between ownership interest and a license to use?  Does a license to use a work in certain circumstances give me possessory interest? I haven’t run into possessory interest used before in the context copyright (IANAL).

Do I need to provide the operator with a list of items I believe I have ownership interest or can I just say “hey give me everything I own?”  If I can get data back where I only have a license can I request any data that I have a valid license whether I uploaded it or not?  Can my wife ask for all of my data based on community property interest?

You also deleted the section regarding the difficulty of an operator returning data that is difficult to access from the provided software.  I think you avoided answering Bruce when he asked that as well.

Is this a can of legal worms I want to open as a developer or user?  Because CAL seems problematic for everyone except the original developer even for folks trying to adhere to the license in good faith.  If the data is present but hard to access the non-developer operator is going to have significant issues in complying with the requirements.

ObDis: Speaking for myself

On 5/10/19, 9:00 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 Nigel,

On Fri, May 10, 2019, 7:32 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu<mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>> wrote:
So…taking the photo site as the example I can:

a.       Take user image

b.       Modify it, creating a “modified” or derivative data (denoise, change size, fix white balance, add a watermark, etc)

c.       Delete the original image from my server

d.       Have no requirement to return the “modified form” of the data achieving vendor lock in

Good hypo. I see that I was being too imprecise when responding to Bruce.

The CAL enforces data portability for data that is 1) an input or output of the software, and 2) in which you have an ownership or posessory interest.

Thus the analysis is how the IP laws of your jurisdiction treat the data stored with the operator. Does the law recognize an ownership or posessory interest? Then you can get the data back. If not, then no.

Comparing and contrasting the two hypotheticals, I see that I was implicitly saying that I don't see that the law would recognize that Anna had an ownership interest in Betty's block, but that the law does recognize my ownership interest in my photos that you have denoised.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190510/b9cebda7/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list