[License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2
simon at webmink.com
Tue Aug 13 16:42:13 UTC 2019
Calling user data "software" is a massive stretch. That's calling the user
data clauses both outside the scope of open source licensing and so
integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the same time. I don't
agree with either, but if I was persuaded by either it would inherently
exclude the other.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:34 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> 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>
>> >>*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?
> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss