<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 8/23/2019 3:30 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEP0FiS6zsqr+bGjDWT9LJydC8OQ3q2YpXeDdQBXZ6istw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43
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"><br>
On 8/23/2019 2:31 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
> Bruce's - and your - arguments are frequently addressed
to what I<br>
> might term "data in the large." Bruce made this point
explicitly, by<br>
> invoking the slippery slope argument. However, should
we be looking<br>
> more specifically at the CAL's requirements? They were
written to be<br>
> narrow and closely tied to the actual capability to use
the software.<br>
Can you walk me through how that's the case? That is the
piece I'm missing.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Sure. The key concept is that a Recipient must have
the full ability to self-host or to switch hosts
without having to give anything up in exercising that
right. This is expressed in the "Purpose" in Section
1:</div>
<br>
> This License also strives to protect the freedom
and autonomy of third<br>
> parties who receive the Work from you. If any
non-affiliated third party<br>
> receives any part, aspect, or element of the Work
from You, this License<br>
> requires that You provide that third party all the
permissions and materials<br>
> needed to independently use and modify the Work
without that third party<br>
<div>
> having a loss of data or capability due to your
actions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This frames the rest of the discussion, because the
focus is on the Recipient-User's ability to fully
utilize the work. This focus is made operable through
the autonomy condition and the definition of User Data
itself:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
> In addition to providing each Recipient the
opportunity to have Access to the<br>
> Source Code, You cannot use the permissions given
under this License to<br>
> interfere with a Recipient’s ability to fully use
an independent copy of the<br>
> Work generated from the Source Code You provide
with the Recipient’s own User<br>
> Data.<br>
> <br>
> “_User Data_” means any data that is either an
input to or an output from the<br>
> Work, or any data necessary for the functioning of
the Work, in which the<br>
> Recipient has an existing ownership interest, or
that the Recipient has an<br>
> existing right to possess, or that has been
generated for or has been<br>
> assigned to the Recipient.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wrote this to be as careful as possible about
preserving the Recipient's ability to fork, or to
self-host, or to choose another host, while not reaching
anything that the Recipient didn't have a right to. As
such, it is closely tied to the actual, practical
experience of running an independent copy of the
software.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is also important that the CAL doesn't require an
operator to delete copies and it does not encumber the
data (in the legal sense). There is nothing that
provides an end-user Recipient control over the use of
the data by an operator-user Recipient. Just as with the
source code, the parties can each go their merry way and
never interact again. This is again a key distinction
that makes the CAL not about "all data," but instead
about preserving an end-user's ability to run the
software,<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
We have been here before. If I understand correctly, your argument
is that one must be allowed you to run the software <i>with the
same data</i>, and therefore it is an open source license because
it enforces that condition. Assuming I have understood it correctly,
you have answered my question.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
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><br>
</body>
</html>