From version 2.1
edited by Pamela Chestek
on 2019.08.16 at 13:29:06 PDT
To version 3.1
edited by Pamela Chestek
on 2019.08.16 at 13:30:03 PDT
Change comment: Formatting changes



Page properties
... ... @@ -15,18 +15,12 @@
15 15  __Open questions__
16 16  \\The above are the reasons that the license has not been approved and the submitter is encouraged to revise and resubmit the license. However, there are also additional issues raised during the discussion of the license that merit further community input and discussion before the license would be approved. These issues are:
17 17  
18 -~1.
19 -
20 -__Scope of copyleft__.
18 +~1. __Scope of copyleft__.
21 21   Until now, the principle of copyleft has only been applied to literal code, not APIs. The license submitter’s proposal is for a copyleft effect that would apply to new implementations of the API even when the underlying has been written from scratch. [[http:~~/~~/>>url:]]. The license also makes this extension even if the legal system would not extend copyright (and therefore copyleft) so far. During the license-review process some commentators objected to this extension of the copyleft principle this far. However, the license review committee does not believe that there was sufficient discussion representing all points of view on the license-review list and so does not reject the license for this reason. The license submitter should also be aware that the OSI was a signatory on a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court advocating against the copyrightability of APIs. APIs are also known to be outside the scope of copyright under European law. We are consequently uncomfortable endorsing an application of copyright law to APIs in any form without further discussion.
22 22  
23 -2.
24 -
25 -__At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior__.
21 +2. __At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior__.
26 26  The trigger for meeting license obligations can differ across licenses. The most common, almost universal trigger, is distribution of software. The AGPL license triggers upon allowing network interaction with modified software. The CAL license implements a new trigger, which is the obligation to make unmodified software available to anyone interacting with an interface for the software. In other words, someone might install a program that allows for interaction with the website (perhaps providing a webform to sign up for a newsletter) and would now be obliged to make the source code available to any person who filled out the webform. [[http:~~/~~/>>url:]] The License Review Committee does not believe that there has been adequate airing of this issue from a variety of viewpoints on the license-review discussion about this aspect of the license, so has not reached a conclusion about at what point imposing license obligations is appropriate.
27 -\\3.
28 -
29 -__A license that requires data portability__.
23 +\\3. __A license that requires data portability__.
30 30  Section 2.3(b) obliges the user of a software to “provide to any third party with which you have an enforceable legal agreement, a no-charge copy … of the User Data in your possession in which that third party has a Lawful Interest ….” The license submitter confirmed in this sequence of emails that the intent of this provision is to expand the scope of software freedom:
31 31  [[http:~~/~~/>>url:]]
32 32   [[http:~~/~~/>>url:]]
... ... @@ -35,8 +35,6 @@
35 35  
36 36  If the license submitter is interested in resubmitting this license for review, the license review committee recommends eliciting additional, more diverse discussion on these points on the license-discuss list prior to its resubmission.\\
37 37  
38 -\\
39 -
40 40  __Exhibit A__
41 41  
42 42  {{id name="h.30j0zll"/}}Cryptographic Autonomy License version 1.0

Submit feedback regarding this wiki to

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license
XWiki Enterprise 7.4.2 - Documentation