<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Combining your two emails.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/25/2019 10:12 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEMXbuf9YA2qo+puJZePUCfn_A80ZAqOf1cXTa+YtGz6Fg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Pam,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You are interpreting the CAL beyond where it
would go. In particular:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Assume I downloaded code to my web server that creates a
display on my<br>
website, a red square. It was easy for me to install, I
just went to<br>
WordPress Plugins and, voila! I do not distribute any code
to the viewer<br>
of my website, no Javascript, nothing. It is just
displayed on my<br>
website.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The key question is whether this red square is
part of the expression of the downloaded code, and if that
expression is sent to your website visitor.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If the red square is just the output of the
code, then you don't need to do anything. The CAL does not
impose any restrictions on you whatsoever.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If you send "red square generating code" to your
website visitor, then the CAL requires you to provide source
code.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is actually identical to what you would be
required to do under the vanilla GPL.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Also, work regard to my comments about the AGPL:
I am simply commenting on interpretations I have seen in the
wild.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For example: </div>
<div dir="auto"><a
href="https://github.com/algorand/go-algorand/blob/master/COPYING_FAQ"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/algorand/go-algorand/blob/master/COPYING_FAQ</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
and <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Reading again, I think I need to further
develop this point.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Under most circumstances, the CAL would not reach
the output of a program. For example, if you had an image
generator program (like your red square) the CAL would not apply
to the output. If you had a CAL licensed Emacs, the CAL would
not apply to the programs you wrote.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The CAL applies when some aspect of the program
itself is sent to a third party. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So I can't say that the CAL would never apply to
your widget. It depends on the implementation. But for your red
square program, it would probably not apply.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You have described "distributing." What, then, do "displaying,"
"communicating," or "making perceptible" "any part, aspect, or
element of the Work" mean if they don't mean simply having a red
square show up on my website? If I have CAL-licensed code that
provides instructions for creating a red square on a web page, how
is that not "making perceptible" the Work? <br>
<br>
Have you forgone your theory that making an API available is
"displaying," "communicating," or "making perceptible" "any part,
aspect, or element of the Work"? No one is getting the literal code
there either. Why is the display of a red square not just an
abstraction of the literal code in the same way an API is? <br>
<br>
More importantly, why do you think a court would necessarily exclude
it as a possible interpretation? For starters, I am only stating the
view of the U.S. Copyright Office: "As a general rule, a computer
program and the screen displays generated by that program are
considered the same work, because the program code contains fixed
expression that produces the screen displays." Copyright Compendium
§ 721.10(A). <br>
<br>
I was referring to your position that installation and configuration
of software creates a derivative work. I don't disagree with you
that it's a plausible argument that copyleft can reach new
implementations of your API under the CAL or the GPL.<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>