[License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Tue Aug 13 16:33:21 UTC 2019

I concur with Richard. To the extent that the user data can be considered
to be software, the license imposes terms upon software which is merely
processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> >>*From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Simon Phipps
> *>>Sent:* Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:06 AM
> *>>To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy
> License (CAL) Beta 2
> >>Can you explain why this is "problematic" in relation to OSD 9 please
> Richard? To my eyes the phrase "any modifications, elaborations, or
> implementations created by You that contain any licenseable >>portion of
> the Work" clearly bounds the effect to derivations of the licensed software
> and not to unrelated software distributed alongside.
> That was my reaction as well.
> Although I dislike use of the noun “elaborations” (what is that intended
> to encompass?) and assume “implementations” is intended to capture a
> reciprocal effect via patents?
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190813/91123ab7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list