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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 8:36 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:03 AM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcormond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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).
>>>
>>
> I'm saying that there is no public performance right for works that aren't
> performed.  Plays are performed, sculpture is displayed, software is
> neither.  If you think it is, the burden of persuasion is on you.
>

The burden isn't on me, as I don't believe it is legitimate to think of
software as 'performed'.  (Even when people made poetry out of DeCSS, and
then other people sung it , that was a musical composition and not
software.  The act of executing software isn't legitimately thought of as a
performance).

The burden to explain the legitimacy of this controversial legal theory is
on the folks who have presented CAL and other such licenses which claim
that there is a performance right for software.  I strongly believe there
shouldn't be, but others who are pushing forward dangerous legal theories
are saying it does.


It is usually bad form to repeat an answer to a Straw Man argument.  I
>> specifically spoke about control, not ownership of hardware.
>>
>
> Ownership *is* control.  If it's my server, I get to turn it off, whether
> you "control" it or not.
>

Ownership means you get to decide who has control.  If I own a car it
doesn't mean I'm the only one who can drive it, but I am the only one who
can decide who else can drive it.

Apparently we are talking past one another.
>

Apparently, if you thought I was the one who thought that a public
performance right for software was legitimate.

To be clear:

 * I believe that CAL should be rejected by OSI, FSF, and anyone else who
supports software freedom.
 * I believe the AGPL should be re-evaluated and hopefully rejected by the
OSI, and maybe eventually the FSF.  The controversial legal theory behind
it opened the door to these other even more harmful licensing concepts.
 * I believe any legal theory that suggests software has a "public
performance" right, or that interfaces have exclusive rights, should be
clearly rejected in law (globally) and be unenforceable in any contract.


-- 
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/20190714/cde427df/attachment.html>