Re: Free licensing of surveillance software

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Roberto Beltran via libreplanet-discuss, 15/01/20 20:48:
> The software is being used ON the surveilled. The surveilled are not users of 
> the software.

This is a key distinction and I don't think it's clear at all. There are 
good reasons why copyleft clauses are usually triggered by more "active" 
(and demonstrable) actions.

If I go to the library and return a book by opening a custom application 
on my device, do I "use" that software? And if instead I need to tap or 
click on some graphical interface on a library computer? And if I just 
scan a barcode at a machine? And if I just need to walk near the 
machine? And if I don't even need to do that?

Similarly, with a software-powered doorbell: my goal is to get (myself 
or something else) past the door. Does it matter whether I press a 
button? Whether I have knowledge that the button executes some software? 
Whether the software runs just when I walk in?

(Also, at what point is it SaaSS and at what point "the computing isn't 
your own activity" or "you are not doing your own computing", per 
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html>?)

I'm not sure what older concepts in copyright law one could rely on. The 
only analogue I can think of is some music machine in a public space 
which plays some music when a person walks in. Maybe some passer by has 
been involved in a lawsuit somewhere! There are special laws about music 
machines though.

As Danese Cooper recently quipped at FOSDEM,* there are "only six verbs" 
our licenses can use, because we depend on copyright law.
https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/municipal_government/

More discussion on the topic was at CopyleftConf (recordings available 
soon, I think):
https://2020.copyleftconf.org/schedule/

Federico