[License-discuss] Developing a new open source license

[VanL]

Hi McCoy,

I very much hope that the Supreme Court grants cert in Oracle v. Google and
reverses - in fact I am writing an amicus to that effect right now. But
given where we are and the odds that the Supreme Court take *any*
particular case, I am right now planning that it is at least somewhat
likely that SSO/APIs will be copyrightable and protectable in the future.
Based on that evaluation, I have to think about how to use it to accomplish
my client's purposes.

I don't define "interface" or API in particular. Instead, I looked to the
public performance right as it currently exists relative to music or
movies. There is a distinct right controlled by the songwriter to have the
performance made available in a non-private fashion. This right is
effective even if there is a new recording of a work (analogous to a "new
implementation" in software), if that work takes a copyrightable element
from the original.

As I currently have it drafted, it is as follows:

“Public Performance” (or “Publicly Performing”) means making aspects of the
Software, including any interfaces used for access to or manipulation of
User Data, directly or indirectly available to the public.

Thus it is directly analogous to the AGPL network interaction clause, but I
think better in line with copyright.

Thanks,
Van






On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:09 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> Given where we currently are in the Google/Oracle case, I’m curious how
> you define API (or if you define it at all).
>
> Would it require copylefting code that implements an API that is
> non-copyrightable, or implements an API when such implementation would be
> fair use?
>
> Anyway, I’ll be at CopyleftCon so maybe I can just ask these questions
> after your presentation.  Sounds like maybe you’re going to address current
> state of the law and how you think that can allow copyleft to expand.
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:52 AM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Developing a new open source license
>
>
>
> Van,
>
> With all respect and understanding of the motivations of the group behind
> this, I have a really big problem with this part:
>
> Unlike other current open source licenses, the Autonomous Agent License
> will require software that implements a compatible API or publicly performs
> the API to also be open source.
>
> I am the standards chair of the Open Source Initiative. *If the provision
> you propose in this license was used by standards associations, they could
> trivially prohibit Open Source implementations of their standard APIs.*
> This is obviously something that OSI would have to fight in court.
>
>
>
> Thus, it's a really, really bad idea for OSI to stand for such a provision
> by approving a license containing it.
>
>
>
> Also, almost trivially compared to the above issue, this obviously
> violates OSD #9.
>
>
>
> So, unfortunately I really have to recommend in the strongest way that a
> license incorporating that term not be approved.
>
>
>
>      Sorry
>
>
>
>      Bruce
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:17 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source
> license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth
> internally for a little while and we will shortly be putting out a draft
> for public comment. After the public comment period, we will be submitting
> the license to the OSI for certification.
>
>
>
> I will also be discussing this license in my presentation at CopyleftConf
> on Monday.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, some of the underlying reasoning for why we need a
> different open source license is being presented on Holo's blog. The first
> post is up now, and the second will be up in a couple days:
>
>
>
>
> https://medium.com/h-o-l-o/why-we-need-a-new-open-source-license-c8faf8a8dadd
>
>
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Van
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190131/8b518a92/attachment-0001.html>