<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Van, now I am doubly confused. You assert that by "perform" you really meant "display." But "display" is a separate explicit verb in 17 USC 106, and according to 17 USC 101 it means:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>To “</span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'>display</span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>” a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'>device </span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>or </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'>process</span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'> or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>My immediate quarrel is not with what you <u>mean</u> to say with your license, only with your choice of copyright terms-of-art that mean something very different.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>It appears that you intend to focus on the "render[ing]" and "display" of the work over a network. In computer science, that is referred to as "executing" the work on the network. Thus, in your situation, you probably mean "<u>executing</u>" the API. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Yes, software is classified as a literary work for purposes of copyright law. But nowadays, the musical or image components of a software work (see, e.g., Pandora and YouTube) can also be performed or displayed. That doesn't change their own copyright character, nor does it suggest that the performance or display is of the literary components of that work. The "literary" software is <u>executed</u> so that those musical or image components can be performed or displayed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I challenge you to do a "dramatic reading, line by line, of the source code to an audience." This reminds me of several of the night-time comics who ask professional actors to read Trump's remarks dramatically to the audience. That is not software, although every component is executed by camera, network, and television software to bring it to me. The performance or display by Trump or the performer are not themselves software.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Yes, it is also true, as you say, that when you "make [your] API available," you may incidentally "make portions of [your] source code available." But the essential and important aspects of that availability is the <u>execution</u> of the API, not anything to do with its source code <i>per se</i>. The "network action of a software program" is its execution on a computer somewhere on the network, not the music or images or even the source code.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>My concern is your choice of terminology. While the Supreme Court has not yet told us that an API cannot be copyrighted nor licensed, I personally prefer that we not confuse them with inappropriate terms-of-art so that they don't understand that the execution of the API is what must – for the sake of free software – remain free and unconstrained. For these reasons, I personally support almost all of Google's amici briefs in that litigation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>My objections have nothing to do with patent law. The word "use" is frequently misconstrued in open source licenses to imply a patent license. Perhaps, or perhaps not? A patented API is a different beast from one where only copyright is claimed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>You said: "We regularly observe situations where people 'send' data to an operator, and then want it back, and the operator refuses." True, but so what? Why force them to return data that the sender already has? And why omit the important reference to "personal information" that the receiver ought not to share with anyone even if the sender wants it back? For that reason, telecommunications networks should not share location data without express permission.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>What you wish to do with CAL can perhaps be done better with correct words. I apologize for calling your response a "casual dismissal." Neither is my objection casual.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Best, /Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> VanL <van.lindberg@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 13, 2019 6:39 PM<br><b>To:</b> Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>; License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Hi Larry,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thank you for the correction.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:13 PM Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com" target="_blank">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Van, your response to my earlier comments about CAL did not capture my objections correctly.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>1. "Performance" is a very misleading word for you to use. First, it is meant by you in an entirely different way than the explicit copyright term-of-art in 17 USC 101:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>To “</span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'>perform</span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>” a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any</span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'> device </span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'>or </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#337AB7;background:white'>process</span></a><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'> 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>You risk misleading licensors and licensees about the meaning of that word.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Here we disagree. You are focusing too literally on selected parts of the statute - many parts of which do not apply.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>But you did not quote all of 17 U.S.C. § 101:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> To perform or display a work “publicly” means—<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> [. . .]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>In particular, I am focusing on the "render[ing]" and "display" of the work over the network as being the performance.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As I have noted previously, software is classified as a literary work for purposes of copyright law, so that is where I go to for examples.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Let's say, for example, that I did a dramatic reading, line by line, of the source code to an audience. Public performance of the code as a literary work? Yes - clearly in line with established cases.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>What about a dramatic display of my code, sending selected lines out to an audience? Yes, and again in line with established cases.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>When I make my API available, in almost all cases I will incidentally make portions of my source code available as part of the response. This is indistinguishable from the dramatic display, and consistent with the full text of the statute.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Also, per OvG, even the minimal creativity involved, plus the creative organization of how to send responses is enough to maintain copyright - and public performance - in the network action of a software program.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Please let me know where you disagree with this analysis. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Many of us believe that an API should not be subject to copyright or licensing restrictions at all.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Again, I generally agree, but that is not where we are. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Aside from copyright, however, the CAL also hooks into the patent rights to use, sell, and offer to sell. Even if I am wrong on my public performance analysis, making the API available over the network is clearly included in at least one of use, sell, or offer to sell. This provides a secondary, independent chain of reasoning to support the concept.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Again, please let me know where you see this failing legally.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>2. When a person sends data to a program, no license should require that the receiving program be prepared to send it back. Data is and should remain free. The sender alreadyd knows (or should know) what data she sent to the receiver. There is no need to impose any return burden on the receiver of that data.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I understand this point. It is a normative point, not a legal one: it "should" not be necessary.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>In an ideal world, that is true. I don't think your representation accords with reality, though. We regularly observe situations where people "send" data to an operator, and then want it back, and the operator refuses.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>More important, my reference in my email to GDPR meant only that the receiver should have a responsibility not to disclose anyone's personal data to any third party. When my phone sends my name and URL and location as data to a receiving program, that automatically (by statute!) should be confidential information. The sender could have copied the data before it was sent, and the receiver should have a confidentiality obligation about that data that forbids her from disclosing it to anyone without my express permission. This has no relationship to "ownership interests or licensing rights." For example, my "location" is not owned; it is merely personal information that I want kept from third parties.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I agree that there should be a general obligation to keep personal information confidential - and under certain statutes, an operator has a requirement to do so. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The CAL does not address the confidentiality of personal information vis-a-vis third parties at all. In fact, there is specific language limiting the data portability provisions to data that a person has a preexisting right to possess.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I hope you won't dismiss my concerns about CAL casually.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>No casual dismissal intended. You felt that my summary was deficient and provided additional information. Now that you explained more, I have tried to respond more fully.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Van<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>