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

VanL van.lindberg at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 11:25:25 UTC 2019

Hi Roger,

Thanks for creating a specific hypothetical.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 10:56 PM Roger Fujii <rmf at lookhere.com> wrote:

> *So, let's concoct an example. I have an authentication db which has
> username/passwords. I have another separate db that has all sorts of data
> on the username. To get a username/password, the user submits a request to
> staff, the staff uses a unmodified CAL licensed standalone program that
> populates the username/password in the authentication db, and the user gets
> the authentication info texted/IMed/emailed to them. Since this is a
> concocted example, I'll say that this standalone program is the only CAL
> licensed part in the system. *

Where this analysis fails is that all the conditions in section 4 only
apply to a Recipient. (See top of section 4). Under this hypothetical,
there is no applicable Recipient relative to whom the conditions apply, so
there are no resulting obligations.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190815/b455ce51/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list