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

[Josh Berkus]

On 8/19/19 8:42 AM, VanL wrote:
> /Previous Discussion/: 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.
> 

I can't say that I agree with any of those points of view.  If we're
going to discuss them, though, should that be here or license-discuss at
this point?

-- 
Josh Berkus