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

[VanL]

Hi Henrik,

There is a catch-22 here. I am trying to represent the law as I understand
it. When I was explicit about my understanding of the consequences of the
law, I was criticized for expressing it. Now, you criticize me for
vagueness. But if there is vagueness, it is because the law is vague.

As I quoted upthread to McCoy Smith, my language regarding the scope of the
license is very closely tied - in most points word-for-word - from the
definition of derivative works in 17 USC 101. I intend to capture every
derivative work, no matter how it is expressed. How is that not exactly
what was intended, and allowed, and consistent with copyleft in its other
iterations?


Also:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:54 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> [snip]
>  - I don't support the underlying goal of making money and attacking
> competing implementations.
>

For the record, this is not the goal. The goal is to create a platform that
is resistant to attempts to undermine user's autonomy. The CAL is one of
the tools in that effort.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190815/739901ec/attachment.html>