[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

VanL van.lindberg at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 20:54:34 UTC 2019

See the few references I added in response to your first message. I believe
the ultimate source n the US is the 1976 act + CONTU recommendations that
were enacted into law, but I would have to double check. Note that one of
the references is a WIPO publication, referring to international law.


On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:40 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> >  *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public
> performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I
> read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlightened.*
> The problem I'm having with this is that you tossed out "software is
> defined as a literary work" without explanation. Where? By Nimmer, or the
> Supreme Court? With existing case law of the use of public performance
> rights for software?
>     Thanks
>     Bruce
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190317/d6b3d1fb/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list