[License-review] For Approval: Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

Pamela Chestek pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Mon Aug 19 14:51:03 UTC 2019


Can you resubmit following the process described under "Under to Submit
a Request"? https://opensource.org/approval. The most significant piece
that's missing is a plaintext copy.

However, I won't make you link to earlier public discussions! And thanks
for providing a summary of the history in one email, that is very helpful.


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 8/19/2019 10:28 AM, VanL wrote:
> Hello all,
> I noted the recording of the vote on the CAL Beta 1 previously
> presented here. As seen on the license-discuss list, I am now
> submitting CAL Beta 2 for approval. The license text is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PFX7PtPoSbSe7cC7BEoh44OjbWN91-IQOyGzO5Zr-1Q/edit?usp=sharing
> I have reworked the CAL to remove the reasons for rejection and to
> address the concerns that led into the “further discussion” items. In
> particular, I worked on laying out the scope of the private right of
> use, clarifying when the conditions apply, and avoiding constructions
> that may result in adverse policy inferences. I also simplified the
> language to enhance interpretability.
> The most controversial aspect of the CAL remains: it requires someone
> who is communicating the software (or a part of the software) to a
> "Recipient" (a non-affiliated third party), to also allow that
> Recipient access to the Recipient's own user data. To show how this
> fits into the broader concept of software freedom, the policy
> associated with this requirement is also laid out: to allow a
> Recipient to fully use an independent copy of the Work generated from
> the Source Code provided with the Recipient’s own User Data.
> For those only following this list, I also provided a changelog on
> license-discuss [1] which prompted some discussion. From that
> discussion, I'll note that Russell McOrmond is on record as believing
> that the CAL is part of a class of licenses - which includes the AGPL,
> and the GPL as applied) is not compliant with the OSD. Bruce Perens is
> on record as believing the any requirements that an operator provide
> user data is a violation of "no field of use" restriction in OSD 6.
> Bruce is also on record as believing that the identification of the
> private right of use is a field of use restriction.
> Thanks,
> Van
> [1]
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-August/020937.html
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190819/60d74de9/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list