<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 8/27/2019 9:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:018301d55d3d$f0be9df0$d23bd9d0$@rosenlaw.com">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
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-size:10.0pt;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">Pam Chestek wrote:<br>
> </span>The copyleft/source code requirements of GPL
are implicated on distribution, not on display. It's not an
issue under the GPL.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">Pam, I remain
confused. Perhaps I have not read and understood clearly the
recent flood of emails about CPL. How does a display of code
differ from a distribution of code? These are both
distributions. Neither of those alternatives have anything
to do with the display of a red box on your screen, unless
you received <u>code</u> to display a red box rather than
an <u>order to use your own code</u> to do the display.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You've misidentified the copyrighted work. The statutory term is
"computer program." You are describing it as limited to the code,
but the Copyright Office's view is that the screen displays are part
of the "computer program." Your distinction between the literal code
on your end and the instructions it sends to render a display is not
one the Copyright Office currently agrees with. I receive
information generated by your computer program that tells my
computer, acting as a remote terminal, what will appear on the
screen. I have not received a tangible copy of the computer program,
so there is no distribution, but there has been a display of the
computer program. If you want to argue that the Copyright Office's
view on screen displays also means the software has bee distributed,
and therefore the requirements of the GPL must be met, we can go
there. <br>
<br>
Let's move to the proprietary world for a moment. I have given you a
copy of a computer program with a browser-based graphical user
interface. I have licensed it to you for your sole use on a single
computer. You install it on a server and make it available to the
world. I hope we agree that there is a breach of the license that
results in a claim of copyright infringement. What is the infringed
right? It's not the rights of reproduction (you made the one copy
you were licensed to make) or distribution (because the public,
interacting through a browser, doesn't ever get a copy of the
computer program). Public performance? Possibly. Why is
inconceivable that it's an infringement of the right of display?
Remote viewing, including on computers, is exactly what the drafters
of the Copyright Act of 1976 were thinking about when they added
display as an exclusive right of an author: <br>
<br>
"Since … 1961, we have become increasingly aware of the enormous
potential importance of showing, rather than distributing, copies as
a means of disseminating an author's work. In addition to improved
projection equipment, the use of closed- and open-circuit television
for presenting images of graphic and textual material to large
audiences of spectators could, in the near future, have drastic
effects upon copyright owners' rights. Equally if not more
significant for the future are the implications of information
storage and retrieval devices; when linked together by
communications satellites or other means, these could eventually
provide libraries and individuals throughout the world with access
to a single copy of a work by transmission of electronic images. It
is not inconceivable that, in certain areas at least, 'exhibition'
may take over from 'reproduction' of 'copies' as the means of
presenting authors' works to the public, and we are now convinced
that a basic right of public exhibition should be expressly
recognized in the statute." <br>
<br>
<span id="co_footnote_Icd6b7b403b2611e98be8f22965dc1bb4"
tabindex="0"></span>
<div class="co_footnoteBody">
<div class="co_paragraph">
<div class="co_paragraphText">Supplementary Report of the
Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S.
Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 to
21 (House Comm. Print 1965).</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:018301d55d3d$f0be9df0$d23bd9d0$@rosenlaw.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">I addressed this
issue in OSL 3.0, which also deals with network
distribution. The mere distribution of the <u>result</u> of
a program or the <u>data</u> used to create that result<u>
does not create a distribution of the program itself.</u>
Is CPL different? </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't see what you're referring to in the OSL, but what you've
described is a situation where you have simply defined
"distribution" in a way that may differ from the legal meaning in
the Copyright Act, as you are perfectly free to do. Nothing is
coming to mind in the CAL as defining terms differently from their
meaning under the copyright law of the enforcing jurisdiction. As an
aside though, if the meaning of "distribution" was clear under
copyright law, why would you need to add any proviso about it? <br>
<br>
What is different about the CAL and the OSL is that the OSL only
imposes obligations on exercise of one of the exclusive rights of
authors, the right to create derivative works (1(c), 6). The GPL
only imposed obligations when the exclusive right of distribution
has been exercised. The CAL imposes obligations on the exercise of
any exclusive right of an author ("4. Conditions. If You exercise
any permission granted by this License ... You must comply with the
following conditions ..."). <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><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>