[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

[Howard Chu]

VanL wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:01 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us <mailto:kevin%2Bosi at km6g.us>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Extending the hypothetical based on common usage: such a widget would
>     almost certainly send JavaScript code to the client which would then
>     reach out to Twitter in order to obtain the desired content, rather
>     than obtaining the content on the server side. Because of this, the
>     user of the widget needs to both know whether it qualifies as
>     *modified* and also how it actually operates (whether there is any
>     code or active content delivered to the user) in order to properly
>     assess their compliance burden under any network-copyleft license.
> 
> 
> Kevin is correct as to how such a widget could work. But I would think that the work would almost always be modified in some respect - at least to specify which
> Twitter feed to fetch.

Setting a configuration parameter of a piece of software is not modifying that software.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/