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

[Nigel T]

I gave you an example of hard to access user data you choose to delete.  

If you can’t go backwards one email message to address it then how do expect a non-developer operator to access user data that isn’t easily accessible through the software?

That you wish to ignore a valid question, as you say, does not excuse a non-answer.

Also if anyone can request anything they have a copyright license to they can go to any CAL licensed site and say “give me everything licensed CC-BY” whether they uploaded it or not. If simply having a license provides “possessory interest” then that would be valid. That, however, is another question: does a license give you “possessory interest” in the context of copyright.

Your license, as you describe it here, is unworkable for most operators.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 10, 2019, at 4:40 PM, VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Nigel,
> 
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:59 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>> 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).
>> 
> 
> Yes, technically you have the right to ask for things that you don't own but you have a rightful license. In practice, this would mean that "I can download things that I uploaded" 99% of the time. If someone wanted to ask for more, then I presume that the standard practice would be that the requester would need to demonstrate that they had a lawful interest. This is standard practice, for example, in some music and photography applications that have a process for registering that you have a license to particular content.
> 
>  
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> Under most circumstances, this would be a "give me my stuff" like Facebook export or Google Checkout. If you think you have an interest in something else, you would need to demonstrate that. If you successfully demonstrate a lawful interest, the operator would need to provide a copy.
>  
>>    Can my wife ask for all of my data based on community property interest?
>> 
> 
> Your wife is not a Recipient. But if she were, then she would need to establish that she has a lawful interest, as above. If she has a lawful interest, then she should be able to get that thing which she "owns." 
>  
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I guess I didn't note that portion. But in general, something being difficult to access does not seem like it would excuse non-compliance.
> 
>  
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Can you explain more of what you mean about "hard to access"? In practice, the data portability provision is mostly applicable in the SaaS context, where you also have a registered account associated with any provided material. That is the 99.9% common use case.
> 
>  Thanks,
> Van
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190511/830ccd88/attachment-0001.html>