[License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:30 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> I was lazy and didn't include a link, but I was really referencing - if
> not exactly quoting - your own words from March:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/004014.html
>
> It seems your mind has changed now that we are discussing a different
> license?
>

No, I am afraid that you are wildly mis-interpreting what I wrote. The
context of the discussion was whether we should consider licenses which are
a modification of FSF licenses, or whether we should defer to FSF in
considering these.

        Patrick Schleizer:

> Generally a good idea but in this specific case, this might be beyond the
wishes expressed by FSF?

Bruce Perens:
We do have to protect their right to attribution, even if we remove
trademarks.

The problem is that we can't give FSF a *veto power* on license review,
nobody would consider *that *fair. So, we have to take lesser measures,
like protecting their trademarks. And we have to do that for everyone
equally.

So, I am having trouble seeing how declining to give FSF a unilateral veto
power on license-review, something we have never even thought of doing with
anyone, places us in an adversary relationship with FSF.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190829/1124c70a/attachment.html>