[License-discuss] [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:33 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> 3. I don't personally find it objectionable for license terms requiring
> source code distribution to trigger upon public performance. It seems
> reasonable in the age of SaaS, and licenses with some form of this right
> have been previously accepted by OSI.
>
...

> The successful application of copyright to APIs would be a disaster for
> Open Source software, in that we would no longer be able to create Open
> versions of existing APIs or languages. Consider that the GNU C compiler is
> the bootstrap tool of Open Source. Now, consider what would have happened
> if copyright protection had prevented independent implementations of the C
> language.
>
> So, it's a bad idea for us to in any way accept the application of API
> copyright today.
>


Can you explain to me what you see as different in seeking to regulate a
so-called "public performance" of software and the application of copyright
to API's?

What is a "public performance" other than an interaction with software
through some public interface?

Are you trying to differentiate an API and an interface which is "human
readable".  All "human readable" data is merely communication over an API
which client software renders for a human to read (even if it is accessing
a text file over a socket using HTTP).



Separately, I still don't see the difference between sharing data with a
commercial data processing provider via paper, removable media such as a
USB stick, or communicated via telecommunications (Internet, etc).   Why is
using FLOSS with companies not using the Internet to communicate with
clients "good", but companies using the Internet "bad"?

While I strongly believe that commercial services that process our data
should be regulated to provide us a minimum of accountability and
transparency for the data they hold on us (including, but not limited to,
the ability to download copies of that data), I don't see what this has to
do with software licensing.  This seems like a need for government
regulation, something that is already moving forward in many jurisdictions
(and our community should increase our involvement in that).

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190712/1284347d/attachment.html>