<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/22/19 7:38 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEMLYcq6RsygvW_5Oq4yLCH7sLBduJmmMMsYXuxkL0HWoA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Pam,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the hypothetical.<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:10
PM 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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
As a complete duffer in software, this provision is
troublesome to me. It goes well beyond offering a service.
This is the same example I used on the last review of this
license, so forgive me for repeating it. Suppose I put up
my homemade website and want a widget that displays my
Twitter feed. I look at my options among the various
addons and extensions and pick one that looks like it's
just the ticket. Woe is me if I picked one under the CAL.
Having the widget on my website is not a private use and
so I have to make the source code available, plus provide
notices and attribution on my website for the widget. I
suspect anyone would be surprised that they had incurred
such a burden.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Is your concern here with the requirement to provide
source code, or with the user data/user autonomy provisions?
The source code can be provided via "easy-to-find hyperlink
to an Internet location" with the necessary source code and
disclosures.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The concern was separate from the data issue. It's not the ease of
compliance, it's the fact that there is a compliance requirement at
all when no other license has one in the same circumstance. Surely
when I search for a widget in an app store and install it on my
platform CMS of choice I can assume I have a license to do just that
with no further requirements.<br>
<br>
This license may be troller's gift. We already have copyright trolls
who use the CC licenses to troll. They post images, use SEO to make
sure their image is at the top of any image search (say "Los
Angeles" or "success"), count on the fact that the person using the
image will fail to comply with the license properly, and then sue
them for lots of money. I have several clients who have been bitten
by this scheme. Indeed the cure provision reduces the risk, but
there is still the opportunity to create some havoc simply because
you have caught people unaware on an unexpected requirement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEMLYcq6RsygvW_5Oq4yLCH7sLBduJmmMMsYXuxkL0HWoA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>- You stated that you are putting in the widget to quote
your own tweets. So would there be any "Recipient’s User
Data in your possession" to be worried about? If it would
just be your own tweets, then no, correct?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEMLYcq6RsygvW_5Oq4yLCH7sLBduJmmMMsYXuxkL0HWoA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>- If you are referring to other's tweets, then do you
have them "in your possession", or are you just displaying
what is provided by Twitter via their API?</div>
<div>- If for some reason you have them in your possession -
say as a local JSON cache - and the person who wrote them
asks for a copy, then would it be an excessive burden to
email the JSON file to the person? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You assume I know what a JSON file is and where to find it.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
</body>
</html>