[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Tue May 14 12:44:21 UTC 2019
I would also comment that I think you have underplayed the significance
of the scope of copyleft question by characterizing it as a "legal
mechanism" question. You have not mentioned below that this license
requires that any newly-written software that implements the same APIs
must also be under and open source license.
That is a new concept; no copyleft license requirement has been applied
to code written from scratch. I don't read the thread, particularly
Richard and Henrik's emails, as suggesting that public performance is
per se the problem, but rather the concept altogether is, no matter how
it is implemented.
Pamela S. Chestek
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
On 5/13/2019 5:02 PM, VanL wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wanted to stop for a minute and provide a checkpoint: a good faith
> summary of what I see as the arguments and counterarguments about the
> CAL. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting anyone's arguments.
> As far as I see it, there are two substantive debates occurring over
> the CAL:
> 1) Can data portability can be guaranteed as part of software
> freedom/under the OSD?
> 2) Is the legal mechanism of using "public performance" effective,
> compliant with the OSD, and good policy?
> These issues are fundamental. Regardless of how well (or how poorly)
> the CAL is drafted, these cannot be resolved through more precise
> wording or better examples. Other issues of wording, or clarifications
> about the role of patent rights have been raised, but those seem to
> have been resolved through explanation or changes to the wording.
> There is also a third line of argument that the CAL is too
> complicated, and that complexity /per se/ should be disqualifying.
> With regard to this third argument regarding complexity, it seems
> subordinate to the substantive debates above. (For an example, see
> Perens, ; also in rebuttal, Villa,
> The substantive arguments above generally only apply to the "operator"
> use case, where the software is being run by a first user (the
> "operator") to provide services to one or more second users (the "end
> users"). Note that the linked messages below are *representative*, not
> *1. Arguments about data portability:* The CAL conditions the exercise
> of copyright and patent permissions on providing data portability for
> end users of the software in the operator context. This is for "User
> Data" as defined in the CAL, which is scoped to data that is input to
> or output from the software in which a user as a preexisting interest.
> - Argument: The data portability provisions violate freedom zero.
> - Response: Data portability is in line with traditional notions of
> software freedom (Lindberg,
> see also "CAL is a net positive contribution to software freedom"
> - Argument: It is a use restriction (prohibited under OSD 6) to deny
> operators the ability to withhold user data from end users because it
> applies more particularly in the operator case. (Perens,
> - Response: Operators are free to use the software in any way they see
> fit - there is nothing in the CAL that denies them the ability to use
> the software in any particular way. They just have to take the
> additional action of providing data portability along with source.
> - Argument: This encumbers data that is outside the scope of the
> license. (Perens,
> - Response: The CAL does not create any rights that did not previously
> exist. It does not change the license for any work or data. (Lindberg,
> - Argument: Data is not copyrightable, so not reachable by the
> license. (Rosen,
> - Response: The copyrightability or not of data is not relevant to the
> license; the CAL does not create new ownership interests or licensing
> - Argument (Ingo vs Ingo!): CAL may fail OSD #6, in similar fashion to
> license zero... "I also agree with Bruce that this whole topic is a
> can of worms"
> - Response: Having "Freedom to run the program for any purpose"
> includes both operator and end user as people "running" the program -
> this is the idea behind all network copyleft.... CAL is scoped "in a
> way that is quite defensible"
> (Both are Ingo, same message:
> - Argument: Data portability is an ethical restriction which doesn't
> belong in a license. (Cowan,
> - Response: The CAL limits itself to permissions for the work and does
> not invoke ethical duties
> *2. Arguments about the legal mechanism:* Open source software
> licenses rely on intellectual property law to enforce their rules
> concerning the licensing of derived works. Most existing FOSS licenses
> have used the ability to distribute the work and to create derivative
> works (both under copyright) as the traditional "hook" for
> enforcement. Some alternatives do exist: the third party beneficiary
> language in NASA 1.3, and the "network interaction" with a modified
> work in AGPL.The CAL also uses distribution and the ability to create
> derivative works as hooks for copyleft enforcement. The CAL also uses
> "public performance" (either as included in the copyright statute or
> as defined in the included definition), as well as patent rights
> (specifically "use", "sale," and "offer for sale").
> Most of the arguments have to do with the use of public performance:
> - Argument: This is legally untested and not necessary (e.g. Ingo,
> - Response: The only other license applicable in an operator context
> is the AGPL, which uses legally novel terms, is gameable relative to
> enforcement, and ambiguous in a corporate context (Lindberg,
> see also Fleming,
> - Argument: Public performance is US-centric and may not be applicable
> in the international context. (Chestek,
> - Response: WIPO "Communication to the public" appears analogous
> see also Ingo,
> and "Public performance is also a defined term" (Lindberg,
> - Argument: Public performance extends copyright ("is copyright
> maximalist") and so should be rejected as a matter of policy.
> (example: Henrik Ingo,
> see also Peterson,
> - Response: "Public performance is recognized under copyright" and it
> is better to use existing legal terms (Lindberg,
> see also Rosen,
> but Rosen mentions that it may be limited in application)
> - Argument: The CAL uses Oracle v. Google-based logic regarding API
> reimplementation, this is premature (Fontana,
> - Response: These rights already exist, this is not an extension
> Also, the structure of the CAL does not make it dependent upon a
> particular outcome in OvG (Chestek,
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review