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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 14:38 John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:11 PM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcormond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is a "public performance" other than an interaction with software
>> through some public interface?
>>
>
> Why, that's easy: it is nothing at all.  What is a "public performance" of
> a painting, a sculpture, or a building?  (There is a separate right of
> "public display".)
>


I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing that it is the same or
similar (right to authorise "public performance" of software, and
interface/API copyright).

Copyright is a bundle of rights, and the rights are necessarily different
for different types of creative works.  Visual Art (like paintings) in many
countries has a resale right, while literary works very deliberately have a
first sale doctrine to disallow downstream restrictions or royalties.
Software is often thought of as a literary work, but it has many traits
that are quite different than fiction novels/etc, and it is inappropriate
to treat them as identical.

The concept of a public performance of a music composition is the closest
analogy to this software legal theory, and yet quite different due to the
control software has over our lives.  (Read Lessig's: Code and other laws
of cyberspace). While a computer can read music compositions as
instructions and automatically "perform" them without the additional help
of a human, and a music composer has the right to authorise that activity,
that is a very different activity than reading software instructions and
"performing" them (publicly or otherwise).


Anyone fighting for software freedom should be trying to reduce the
excessive unaccountable control large software vendors have, not enhance
their power over citizens through novel legal theories.

The harm of the public performance via public interface legal theory seems
to me to be as bad as information/mental process patents and technological
measures.  The FSF and others at one time opposed software patents, and
still claims to oppose DRM (encrypted media is a restriction across an
interface, conceptually similar to the problem here).

You still haven't answered my question about whether ssh-ing to someone
> else's server and running some program there counts as "on your own
> computer" or not.  Does it matter if you pay for the use of the server or
> it is gratis?  (I hold that the GPL conditions attach in all these cases)
>

I did answer, but you didn't accept my answer.

It is usually bad form to repeat an answer to a Straw Man argument.  I
specifically spoke about control, not ownership of hardware.

This means if you ssh into a computer you control (the use of the ssh
protocol itself doesn't disclose the level of control you have), then you
are the one who installs/combines/runs/etc the software (the software user,
for the purposes of software license agreements).   While I don't believe
private copying should be regulated by copyright, and have actively
promoted that concept within Canada, we can leave that issue for the moment
as you seem to accept that all these activities should be thought of as
regulated activities.



I have sshd set up in many environments to only allow sftp/rsync.  The user
of that API is not the software user for the purposes of a software license
agreement. In this case the license applies to me (I copied/installed it,
authorised it to run, etc), not to any of those API users, and not about
any of those API users.

The license on sshd does not attempt to dictate the licensing or other
terms of commands that are forked from it.  I can ssh into a computer and
run the most offensive proprietary software, and the licensors of sshd
don't and should never have a say in that.

I suspect this is where you were trying to lead the conversation,
suggesting that typing commands on a shell is analogous to a public
interface.  Fortunately most people recognise the harm that a shell
copyright owner dictating terms about what commands run from a shell, and
thus nobody has claimed a desire to regulate that interface.  But once we
accept regulation of and across interfaces, there will be many harmful
consequences:  intended or unintended doesn't matter.

I still don't know why people are spending so much time trying to extend
the scope of exclusive rights for software exclusive rights owners. This is
effectively what they are doing by trying to extend the class of people
considered software users for the purposes of software license agreements,
and extend the types of restrictions that can be demanded across interfaces.


John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.or
> <cowan at ccil.org>g
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190713/03cb4e97/attachment.html>