On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 8:36 PM John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:03 AM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@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
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
