Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 5:34 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote: > > > ... this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion. > > > > Bruce Perens wrote: > > > I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft". > > > > I believe that Patrice-Emmanuel is

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:20 AM Luis Villa wrote: > I dislike this, but the Federal Circuit would tell you that the APIs are > expressive source code. > In their evil little hearts, the F.C. seems to believe that once you write down an idea that's *your idea*, and novelty etc. are mere formaliti

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek > wrote: > >> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified. >> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the softw

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs are not protectable under any IP law. They may be protectable under copyright law, under patent law, or both. So 1) What is licenseable about an API under copyright law? and 2) What is licenseable about an API under patent law?

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL] > > I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified. > Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee > having an obligation. Is it a princi

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:55 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Christine Hall dixit: > > > Open source licenses (again, according to my understanding -- folks with > > many years experience at OSI should correct me if I'm wrong) should > > apply only to the software being licensed, and the data collec

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On 7/2/2019 11:31 AM, VanL wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek > mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL] > I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been > modified. Under the CAL, one cannot

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Use of the term Public Performance

I think that the points that Bruce makes are valid. I personally considered "public performance" to be nicely tailored to the intended scope. But if that is what is objectionable, why not: If You exercise any permission available under the copyright law, patent law, or database protection laws app

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:31 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek >

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:42 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > How does the AGPL fail? The right to run unmodified software has no > burdens in the AGPL. But there is with CAL, the burden of providing data. > The AGPL fails, in part, because there is no private right of use for a modified version. F

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:56 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>For example: I am a corporation, running modified

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

Hi McCoy, great question. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > >>For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a > way that is only accessible to my employees. Per the AGPL, I must give my > employees code and rights to the modified version, even though the

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Larry Rosen wrote: > I believe the line is actual copying of the expressive source code. Luis Villa responded: > I dislike this, but the Federal Circuit would tell you that the APIs are > expressive source code. I don't disagree; it is expressive source code, just as in Van's example a

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>Let's work it through: The licensee in this case i

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

I understand that. However, it seems to me that requirement would be outside the scope of an open source software license. As has been pointed out, ownership of the data and the requirement to return it or not is already covered by law in many jurisdictions, and in any jurisdictions where it's

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/2/2019 11:25 AM, VanL wrote: > There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs > are not protectable under any IP law. They may be protectable under > copyright law, under patent law, or both. So 1) What is licenseable > about an API under copyright law? and 2) What is li

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

VanL dixit: >For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a way Or even: AGPL software to which a not publicly disclosed security patch has been pre-applied. This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

> 2) That brings us to the second point: Patents. This point is being > largely ignored, because for a long time copyright was seen as the prime > mover As has been argued on this list, there is generally a consensus that > the OSD requires a patent grant. But that means that any "use" of a > paten

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

I would think that software being accessed only by employees, whether through SaaS or by installation on a workstation, constitutes private use by the licensee. I would extend that to public access, if that access is limited to hardware that is under the control of the licensee, such as a kiosk

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:53 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 7/2/2019 11:25 AM, VanL wrote: > Van, I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't answer the same > question as "is it open source"? Add to that the interesting possibility that > currently-existing licenses will now reach beyon

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:55 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering > this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible, so it’s not possible to run > AGPL-licenced software with security support. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:04 AM Christine Hall wrote: > I would think that software being accessed only by employees, whether > through SaaS or by installation on a workstation, constitutes private > use by the licensee. There are probably un-litigated questions here. Like, is a consultant work

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM VanL wrote: > As argued by the FSF FAQ , > the inclusion of *any* code element from a copylefted source makes the > entire work a derived work. > At the same time, they lay no claim to an independently developed implem

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

Hi McCoy, With regard to most software licensing, including FOSS licensing, network interaction is not an issue. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > > >>As soon as the employee has an individual license to the modified work, > the game is up; no other restrictions can be

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: IMO the right to sequester "private modifications" went obsolete as soon as > there was SaaS. It's not in the OSD and I never considered it fundamental > to Free Software or Open Source.

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Cowan wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > It is the computer version of a trade secret. > I just can't stretch my mind to encompass that the mission of either Open Sou

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

Hi Christine, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:42 AM Christine Hall wrote: > I understand that. However, it seems to me that requirement would be > outside the scope of an open source software license. As has been > pointed out, ownership of the data and the requirement to return it or > not is already

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Hi Bruce, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM VanL wrote: > >> As argued by the FSF FAQ , >> the inclusion of *any* code element from a copy

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Hi Richard, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:07 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > But leaving that aside, I would argue that this section, if activated > by "the original copyright holder", transforms GPLv2 into a > non-open-source, and indeed non-free-software, license. > I see and understand your polic

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:32 AM VanL wrote: > Let's assume for a moment that 1) APIs are copyrightable, and 2) I have an > "expressive" API (for whatever value of "expressive" you choose). If I > write a reimplementation that copies the "expressive" elements from your > API, are you arguing that

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:38 AM VanL wrote: > I don't see how this position can possibly be logically consistent with > the broad understanding of open source: A foundational license of both free > software and open source, that is not FOSS if it is used as explicitly > described within the licen

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>The difference is that the AGPL is overbroad to wh

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

VanL dixit: >There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs are I would, but IANAL. European here, though. >If the API is part of the "Work" for copyright purposes, then copying the >API That’s just the thing. The API is the outwards-facing interface, designed for interop

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Hi Pam, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:53 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > Van, I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't answer the same > question as "is it open source"? Add to that the interesting possibility > that currently-existing licenses will now reach beyond what everyone > thought their

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 AM VanL wrote: > Data access is not out of scope for software licensing generally ... > I would like to understand where in the OSD that is being found. Didn't we already discuss this extensively on license-review? There are complaints that I repeat myself, so I hesi

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On 7/2/2019 1:26 PM, VanL wrote: > Regarding 2): Data access is not out of scope for software licensing > generally; there are many examples of licenses that do or do not allow > for data access. I have personally negotiated a number of enterprise > licensing deals where data access was an explic

[License-discuss] How global do licenses have to be? [was Re: Copyright on APIs]

tl;dr: our existing licenses are maybe not as global as we'd like to pretend; feels like that has implications for future license approvals (and maybe CAL) but I'm not sure what those implications are/should be. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:33 AM VanL wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:20 AM Luis Vil

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:46 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: [trim lots of Java] > Let’s make a Java™ source file out of this, which will then be > comprised of solely the API description, but no creative parts yet: [trim more Java] You just put your finger on the issue: Are APIs creative in a copy

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:41 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:32 AM VanL wrote: >> >> Let's assume for a moment that 1) APIs are copyrightable, and 2) I have an >> "expressive" API (for whatever value of "expressive" you choose). If I write >> a reimplement

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

Hi Pam, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:55 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > But I don't see an analogy for > database/data rights; I don't see how data portability affects the use > of the software. You're using copyright as a mechanism to achieve a > purpose different from ensuring the right to use/modif

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API > (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does > not fit this definition [of a derivative work]. In my naivete, I would have thought that the

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API > (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does > not fit this definition (even if it would fit the folk notion of > derivative work that the fre

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API >> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does >> not fit this definition (even if it would f

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

Hi Pam, A second comment: On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:55 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > As to "where in the OSD," I disagree with your framing that every > license must be approved unless we can point to a specific rule broken. > "Out of scope" is a valid reason; that is one reason why the human >

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

VanL, Pamela has pretty much summed up what I was going to write. Certainly, a commercial software license is a contract that can include just about anything the licensor wants, so that's a non-argument. It's also true that just because a license is contrary to the OSD license doesn't automati

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana > wrote: > >> > >> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API > >> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive ele

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:13 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an >>open source license >>Thought experime

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

And all of these things relate back to the software itself, do they not? User data collected by an application is not necessary to have to successfully use the software. Christine Hall Publisher & Editor FOSS Force: Keeping tech free http://fossforce.com On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:38 PM VanL wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> >> >> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:13 AM VanL wrote: > It is a fundamental element of LISP that "data" and "program" are > expressed (or expressable) using the same syntax. > This is really stretching. All programming languages have some way of encoding data, text strings fit the definition. A lot of it

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:44 PM Christine Hall wrote: > > On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > I think a better analogy would be the inclusion of the Installation > > Information requirement in the *GPLv3 family of licenses. That imposes > > an obligation to provide data which is potentiall

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

I don't see how this is similar at all to requiring the user to make data collected by an application available. Your TiVo example still refers to being able to run the software, so it's directly related to the software. The user data collected and stored by is a product of the software that i

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

Quick clarification: On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Christine Hall wrote: > I don't see how this is similar at all to requiring the user to make > data collected by an application available. > It is narrower than that. The specific term in the CAL doesn't cover all data collected by an applicat

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

In our analysis at Bloomberg, we settled on the stricter interpretation for the reasons hinted at by Bruce; we cannot guarantee that *only* employees would be the ones accessing an internal instance which may contain modifications; contractors, interns, vendor representatives, etc. all may end up h

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

VanL dixit: >You just put your finger on the issue: Are APIs creative in a copyrightable >sense? You assert, without argument, that they are not. Hmm. I still think they aren’t creative, but have nothing to back that up. With them being not under protection from copyright laws as necessary for

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

John Cowan dixit: >On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < >license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >IMO the right to sequester "private modifications" went obsolete as soon as >> there was SaaS. It's not in the OSD and I never considered it fundamental >> to Free

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

That is a distinction I need to mull over. Christine Hall Publisher & Editor FOSS Force: Keeping tech free http://fossforce.com On 7/2/19 3:22 PM, VanL wrote: Quick clarification: On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Christine Hall > wrote: I don't see how this

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: (aka “we restrict your freedom to protect freedom”) > Well, that's not as paradoxical as you make it sound: consider “we restrict your freedom [to swing your fist] to protect [other people's] freedom [to keep their noses intact]”. John Cowa

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >It's the instantiation of Freedom One: "The freedom to study how the > >program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish." A disclosure obligation does not curtail your freedom to change the program so that it does your

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit: >Please don't tell me that private modifications are a right fundmental to >Free Software or Open Source, because they stop being a right under current >FSF-authored and OSI-accepted licenses if you distribute, deploy, or >perform. Private modifications are