<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Assume that there is a right of public performance in an API.[^1]
What section of the OSD, or well-settled rationale for not approving
a license, does this particular provision of the CAL fail?[^2] It
exercises no rights outside of copyright law. It serves to make more
software available under open source licenses. Why is this not
considered "open source"?<br>
<br>
My point here is the understandable complaint that the OSI
decisionmaking process can be unpredictable. I'm seeing statements
that this provision is unusual, or new, or beyond what the FSF was
trying to accomplish, but not a reason why it therefore fails the
definition.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
[^1]: There is an escape hatch in the definition. It says "'Public
Performance; (or 'Publicly Performing') means any action that
implicates the rights of public performance or public display of a
work under copyright law." I can argue, or perhaps it can be
clarified, that the definition says if there isn't such a thing
under copyright law, then this provision isn't operational. However,
I don't believe that <i>Google v. Oracle</i> will have the result
of closing the door on the right of public performance for APIs,
since <i>Google v. Oracle </i>is about the right of reproduction,
not the right of public performance. Personally I believe it is a
non-frivolous theory.<br>
<br>
[^2]: I personally question the data possession provisions, but I'm
putting that aside for now.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<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><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/30/19 6:00 PM, Bruce Perens via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOuuxq7WaYzZr-7bnb09N2nUCFgs0RpcGxBaNHCoOKgmuw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Interesting opinion by Lothar Determann:
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div>Under § 106(4), the copyright owner has the exclusive
right to, “in the
case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes,
and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, perform
the copyrighted
work publicly.” Software source and object code typically
qualifies as a
literary work because it consists of numbers and letters.
When executed, it
causes computers to display user-generated output—which
the software
copyright owner does not own—and a GUI—which the software
copyright
owner typically does own. GUIs contain words, numbers, and
graphics and
qualify as literary, pictorial, or graphic works under §
102(a). GUIs do not
“consist of a series of related images which are
intrinsically intended to be
shown”; thus, they do not qualify as audio-visual works.57
Section 106(4)
does not cover pictorial and graphic works in its
enumeration of protected
works.58 Thus, the right to public performance under §
106(4) cannot apply
to Scenarios 1 through 5 or 7, unless the literary works
elements of the
underlying code or GUI are “performed.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>“To ‘perform’ a work means to recite, render, play,
dance, or act it, either
directly or by means of any device or process or, in the
case of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in
any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it
audible.”59 The enumerated activities
(recite, render, play, dance, act) all require as a common
feature that the work
be presented to a human audience in a manner that the work
can be
perceived visually or audibly.60 The execution of code
internally within a
computer does not cause or allow perception by a human
audience and thus
does not constitute performance.61 The text elements of a
GUI are displayed
statically for viewing and interacting with the program,
but usually not shown
in a sequence or made audible. Therefore, software as such
is not susceptible
to public performance under § 106(4).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There's more in the article.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, we have some interesting questions. Van might wish to
try to rebut Lothar's opinion. Is it in OSI's interest to
approve licenses which assert the public performance right
for purposes <i>other</i> than requiring publication of the
source code? I note that although FSF disapproves of the
assertion of a public performance right in software (or any
more rights whatsoever), they did try to make use of
something similar in AGPL, and OSI approved the license
after some argument.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:49
PM Smith, McCoy <<a href="mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">mccoy.smith@intel.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">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_351234944991223092WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">FWIW,
there is a discussion of this question in the
following article:
<a
href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2046&context=btlj"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2046&context=btlj</a>,
specifically in Sections III.C.6 & III.C.7.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
name="m_351234944991223092__MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
name="m_351234944991223092______replyseparator"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> License-review
[mailto:<a
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Perens via License-review<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Bruce Perens <<a
href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">bruce@perens.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval:
The Cryptographic Autonomy License</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let's try that again.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Van's response was a reply to
this question: </p>
</div>
<div>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">><i> First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public</i></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">><i> performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I</i></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">><i> read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlightened.*</i></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"> </span></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal">Upon re-reading, it appears
that Van read my question as asking whether
software was copyrightable at all, and did not
really answer the question about the public
performance right. This is either
misunderstanding, or squirrely lawyer stuff :-)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>