Quiet Enjoyment under CAL

Continuing the discussion from Cryptographic Autonomy License draft v1.0-Beta:

I would strongly recommend against express the core ethical injunction of the license in dusty legal terms of art. I’m a lawyer and I liked Property class plenty well. But other than remember that’s where I last heard “quiet enjoyment”, I couldn’t tell you where the analogy leads on user data.

What would this look like in plain terms? How do those looking for a license like CAL express it? Is that better material for a preamble, since it’s likely somewhat vague, and won’t add much to a list of specific injunctions and prohibitions?

Note: This has been slightly updated to: “You must refrain from using the permissions given under this License to interfere with Recipient’s quiet enjoyment of their own User Data.”

As you noted, “Quiet enjoyment” is a real property term, just like “possessory interest” is. The exact definition as expressed varies a bit:

Nolo: This covenant means that the landlord will not do anything to disturb the tenants’ rights to peacefully and reasonably use their rented space—and that the landlord will act in a way that allows for peaceful use.

The Free Dictionary: In the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the landlord promises that during the term of the tenancy no one will disturb the tenant in the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises.

If I were to reword-dropping all defined terms-it might be something like:

You cannot use the permissions given under this license to interfere with a recipient’s possession or use of their own user data in contexts outside their relationship with You.

1 Like

This is much clearer, apart from “outside their relationship with You”. Forgive me marking up a tad?

You cannot use the permissions given under this license to interfere with a recipient’s possessionaccess to or useprocessing of their own user data in contexts outside their relationship with You.

You’re already using GDPR-style data terminology elsewhere. I’d run with it.

One early criticism of CAL was that it could be read to imply an open-ended requirement to host/process the user’s data. I don’t want to imply that a SaaS provider can’t terminate a relationship. I do want to make sure that they can’t hoard the data created or provided during that relationship.

In rights terms, I am protecting exit.

Hmm…

You cannot use the permissions given under this license to interfere with a recipient’s possessionaccess to or useprocessing of their own user data in contexts outside their relationship with Youthrough services provided with this software.

Close? Could you improve?