[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Henrik Ingo]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:08 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see this point, but disagree about the likelihood of inadvertent suit. This is probably an irreconcilable difference, as I see the public performance aspect as being key to the CAL.
>
>> 3. It is not necessary for you to use Public Performance to achieve
>> your goals of the license. Both from a copyright law, and an Open
>> Source Definition point of view, you can use legal methods that are
>> more boring, but better tested and safer, to achieve your goals.
>
>
> See above.

I was not very clear about it, but indirectly I was inviting you to
justify why you think it is *necessary* to use the concept of Public
Performance in CAL. What problem - other than just maximizing the
power of copyright law - does it solve for you that wasn't adequately
solved without it?

Or is your answer just that it isn't necessary, but there is also no
reason to be concerned?

>> Another remaining point from my previous review: CAL 2.3 c-e cover the
>> use of DRM within the software licensed by CAL. It doesn't cover the
>> use of DRM in the hardware or OS to restrict installation and use of
>> the CAL licensed software. This seems like an unfortunate loophole
>> that can be fixed by borrowing a few sentences from GPLv3.
>
>
> If you take a look at the exact text, the text is very close to the GPLv3. There was quite a bit of "borrowing" in exactly the way you suggest.
>

Hmm... I only now realize that the final text of GPL3 doesn't include
the draft text: "any encryption or authorization codes necessary to
install and/or execute the source code of the work"? Why was it
removed, does anyone know?

Anyway, I'm just a simple engineer here. Can you tell me which part of
the CAL ensures this outcome?

>> For 2.4, I still wonder whether you are willing to consider some more
>> explicit option to flag that I didn't choose to use the option. For
>> example, when I apply CAL to my software, can I remove §2.4 from the
>> license text?
>
>
> I see this point, but I think that you are covered: 2.4 is an opt-in provision that applies only if it is explicitly called out by the license author. If you don't see the particular text specifically invoking it, it does not apply.
>

I agree it is already provided for. I think it could be more explicit.
Clearly this is a minor point compared to all others.

henrik
-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7