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

VanL van.lindberg at gmail.com
Mon May 13 13:28:38 UTC 2019

Hello Nigel,

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 4:07 PM Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

I apologize for not seeing that part of your question, it was in the middle
of a paragraph most of the way down. There was no intent to ignore your

If I have located it correctly, your question was:

> 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.

If someone is acting as an operator providing services to another person,
then yes, they would need to provide a copy of the source code and a
person's user data, even if there is not a particular "export data"
functionality built into the software. You point out that this may take
time and require someone to do some work. That is correct - but it is no
different than someone not being prepared to offer complete corresponding
source. Many of us have advised entities on how to put together CCS (which
involved time, money, and outside expertise).

> 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.

This does not follow. The availability of a work with an offer to license
under particular terms does not automatically make a person a licensee. If
a person took some action to take possession of the works, then they would
likely be a licensee and thus have those items be user data under the CAL.
But your "give me everything" hypothetical is not operative.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190513/e3c47ea7/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list