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

[VanL]

Hi Josh,

Russell and Bruce were the only two people in that discussion who
specifically declared that they found CAL Beta 2 unsatisfactory, and they
each provided a reason. I wanted to reflect those announcements here in the
spirit of full disclosure.

I am not suggesting that we reopen those discussions, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they get reopened anyway. :)

Thanks,
Van


On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:00 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190819/6f0184ce/attachment.html>