<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/28/2019 10:50 AM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM-F0Z8vEJNgtD270krDa_DB1T55rsxZMfnD-Y6gXB92w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello Pam,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the questions and comments - I'll respond to all
of them, but I will take some out of order as some take either
more thought or more explanation.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 9:38
AM Pamela Chestek <<a
href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
On 4/23/19 6:18 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
> In this case, my client identified that it was in their
business<br>
> interest to have a strong network copyleft license that
was maximally<br>
> respecting of user freedom. <br>
Any software that replicates APIs (e.g., Dalvik), even if
entirely<br>
written from scratch, would have to be offered under the
CAL. Is that<br>
your intention?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, that is correct in general - although note that
reimplementations of an API (like Dalvik) could be offered
under a Compatible Open Source License. So in a hypothetical
scenario where Java were available under the CAL, Google's
Apache-licensed Dalvik would be compliant.<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I do NOT read this license as not having any copyleft effect
on software<br>
that simply uses APIs. Is that correct? If my reading is
incorrect, can<br>
you walk me through it?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is correct. Barring constructed hypotheticals,
consuming an API would not have any licensing implications.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,<br>
</div>
<div>Van<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hi Van,<br>
<br>
Thanks, and I appreciate your indulgence while I struggle with how
the license is architected. So the design of the license (and
perhaps the goal) is that (1) any software written to offer the same
APIs has to be under a Compatible Open Source License and (2) the
user's data is portable. Is that correct?<br>
<br>
If the Supreme Court were to hold that there is no copyright in
API's, what happens to Public Performance under the CAL? Does it
still survive? The copyright right at issue in Google v. Oracle is
the right of reproduction, not public performance. As the definition
is written, I believe it does survive. So writing software to offer
the same APIs would be subject to the terms of the CAL, even though
the Supreme Court said it was lawful. Do you agree?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a></div>
</body>
</html>