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

[Pamela Chestek]

Here please. The license has been submitted and any discussion going to
whether or not it should be approved should be on L-R.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 8/19/2019 4:00 PM, Josh Berkus 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?
>