<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Responses inline. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/30/2019 9:00 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Pam,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sorry for the delay replying.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 9:30
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">Hi Van,<br>
<br>
Below are some comments on the text itself.<br>
> Section 2.2.1 and 2.4 are circular references so that
it's not clear<br>
what the duty is.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The intention is that it can function either like MPL's
per-file licensing, or like the LGPL. But reading this, I
understand the confusion. I have updated the draft to try to
address this issue. Does this make it clearer?
<h2 dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.295;margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">2.4. Combined Work Exception</span></h2>
</div>
<div>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.295;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:8pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">As an exception to the conditions in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, any Source Code files marked by the Licensor as having the “Combined Work Exception,” or any Object Code exclusively resulting from Source Code files so marked, may be combined with other Software into a “Larger Work.” So long as you comply with the conditions in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 relative to the Source Code provided to you by Licensor, any other Software in the Larger Work as well as the Larger Work as a whole may be licensed under the terms of your choice.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.295;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:8pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<p
style="line-height:1.295;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:8pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I hope that this also clears up the use of the term "relative." It is here essentially a synonym for "regarding" or "with respect to."
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, that's fine. There still is a problem with 2.2.2 and the
wording "with the exception in 2.4." Why aren't 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
parallel language?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> <br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<snip><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Section 2.3: It says "You must give the same permission
received under<br>
this License to any Recipient...." However, Section 7.2 says
the license<br>
is not sublicensable, so the Licensee doesn't have authority
to grant<br>
permissions at all. The clause doesn't seem to have an
effect and<br>
therefore only creates confusion.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is intended to reflect a similar concept to the
GPL's "no further restrictions" clause. I am open to ways to
improve this to make it clearer.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Isn't it as simple as "cannot impose any additional restrictions"?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Section 2.3(e): missing capitalization of "Work"? I also
don't<br>
understand what it's trying to say or stop.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, capitalization fixed. With regard to the meaning,
this is an anti-DMCA clause. See my email to Henrik on this
list identifying the parallel GPLv3 clause.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
"See email" isn't particularly helpful when the thread is so long
and I am looking for an email from you, of which there are many. A
link to the pipermail link would be more helpful.<br>
<br>
IMO, your generalization of the language from the GPLv3 makes it
unintelligible here (and frankly I don't understand it in the GPLv3
either).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Section 4.1: I would insert the word "automatically" before
"compliance"<br>
within 60 days to distinguish it from compliance after that,
which<br>
requires the express restoration by the Licensor.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is this what you mean? "<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap" id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-87d40238-7fff-8aca-a0a5-bb75f2e49ff3">As a special exception to termination for non-compliance, Your permissions for the Work under this License will <u>automatically</u> be reinstated if You come into compliance with all the conditions in section 2 within sixty days of being notified by Licensor or an intended third party beneficiary of Your noncompliance."</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><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">
You have defined "Public Performance" as using the Software
to take any<br>
action that implicates the right of performance or public
display under<br>
copyright law, and include as one use case of making an
interface<br>
available. The license grant is for this full scope.
However, your<br>
definition of "Modified Work" and "Recipient" refer only to
"Public[ly]<br>
Perform[ance/ing] an interface." This creates ambiguity
about the scope<br>
of the right for Modified Work and that Recipients have.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you look at the header to 2.3, it encompasses all ways
in which a Licensee can communicate the Work to a Recipient.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not following at all.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEM2Cgh23Koad83DHAicAdjExAK3VQQcdexZS5fi5YHbJw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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">
Section 7.1.1: I don't understand why a reference to GDPR is
required;<br>
it strikes me as a "you must comply with all applicable law"<br>
requirement. And why the GDPR and not any other or future
laws? If a<br>
statement is needed that the requirements the law impose
will override<br>
the license requirements, you can say that more generally.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This clause is not about complying with the GDPR. Rather,
it is the reverse: It is a limitation saying that if you
comply with those specific subsets of the GDPR, that is also
good enough to count as compliance with CAL 2.3(b). It is
intended to streamline CAL compliance by hooking into an
already-existing enforcement regime.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not misunderstand this section but I am apparently not
explaining my concern clearly enough. It is facially non-compliant
with OSD 6. You have given special permission to someone who has to
comply with the GDPR that relieves them of duties under CAL. Others
who may have similar conflicts do not get this special permission.
Imagine that Australia passes exactly the same law as the GDPR
except it's called the ADPR. Those who have to comply with the ADPR
do not have the special forgiveness for compliance that those who
are complying with the GDPR have. The Australians therefore may not
be able to use the CAL software because they cannot comply with it
and the ADPR at the same time, but those who must comply with the
GDPR have an additional permission so they can comply with both. The
solution is to make this section non-specific to a particular legal
regime.<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>