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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 4/23/19 10:15 PM, VanL wrote:
> There is a particular way of locking down a program that is available
> in hashchain applications; that particular method is addressed in a
> single clause. That is exactly like anti-Tivoization (which is also
> addressed in a single clause inspired by the GPLv3, and the
> anti-circumvention, which is addressed in a third clause - again
> parallel to the GPLv3).

On 4/23/19 11:55 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> Here you add data to the terms, which none of our other licenses
> require, and you require it of /users /of the program who are not
> developers. 

Bruce does identify what strikes me as a distinction between your
section 2.3 and the anti-Tivozation clause. The anti-Tivozation clause
says that where object code is conveyed on certain devices where the
device is transferred in a way equivalent to ownership, then you must
give me what is needed to install and execute a modified version of the
code on the device. That all relates to my right to modify code in a
meaningful way. Your provision simply says that someone can get a copy
of their data, as Bruce points out a burden that falls on someone who is
only running the software. So I don't consider them analogous.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190427/10107beb/attachment.html>