[License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 11:59:50 UTC 2019
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:16 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:
> Forgive me, but that is just a redundant statement that is legal weasel
> wording. You're essentially still saying that if an API could be protected
> by copyright, in some jurisdiction, then the CAL would still claim those
> rights. In my understanding, the previous review round was fairly strongly
> against this.
I would have you know that I am 1/16 weasel. On my mother's side.
More seriously, the CAL goes right up to the border of copyright, whatever
that may be. I don't apologize for that. I understood the policy concern
resulting from appearing to push the boundaries, so I removed that. But
the CAL makes the same bargain as other reciprocal licenses - and if I am
correct about where the law will end up, has exactly the same scope.
 My thinking here was motivated in part by some of my old writings
criticizing the GPL FAQ for its interpretations that very much do push the
boundaries of copyright, but are quoted as near-scripture and taken as
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss