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

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Tue Aug 13 19:08:49 UTC 2019

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:46 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is incorrect. I have corrected you on this point repeatedly, but you
> continue to make this unsupported argument.


In a discussion like this, you can expect people to disagree, and to *continue
*to disagree. It seems to me that if we are all going get along, the
appropriate response to such disagreement is *not *to take a strident tone
and recount how many times you have attempted to correct me, as if you were
a harried school teacher facing a recalcitrant pupil.

The CAL does not encumber any data. It does not change the licensing on any
> data. Please respond with the specific text that "encumber[s] data
> processed by the program."

The terms very obviously require the licensee to perform a specific action
with the data. If this is not "encumberance", what is it?

"Withholding user data" isn't a field of endeavor, just like "withholding
> source code" isn't a field of endeavor.

Of course development of proprietary software, sequestration of its source
code, and making use of copyright and trade-secret protection is a *very
popular* business method in the industry and can indeed be considered to be
a field of endeavor. We have already discussed on this list, and
license-review, why OSD #6 does not prohibit reciprocal licensing even
though this is so. I doubt that you really mean to open that discussion


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190813/f81887cf/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list