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

[Pamela Chestek]

Hi all,

I'd like to pause this discussion for a few days. As everyone knows and
I think agrees, email is poorly suited for this process. The License
Committee has been discussing trying out a different tool, probably just
a simple issue tracker. If y'all could give us a few days to figure out
if we want to try it out with this discussion, that would be very
greatly appreciated.

Van, if you would prefer we NOT try a tool other than email, please let
me know.

Thanks,
Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 8/19/2019 5:09 PM, VanL wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> Looking again, I didn't really address your question about the "offer
> an acceptance" language. So here goes:
>
> License terms such as these are interpreted as contracts. Contracts
> require 1) an offer, 2) an acceptance, and 3) consideration.
>
> > ### 2.2. Offer and Acceptance
> > This License is automatically offered to every person and organization.
>
> This establishes that the license is being offered as-is to every
> possible licensee. This is the "offer" part of contract law.
>
> But because I don't want to individually sign an agreement with every
> possible licensor, I need some way for someone who wants to use
> software under this license to show that they have accepted it. That's
> the next part:
>
> > You show that you accept this License and agree to its conditions by
> taking any action with the Work that, absent this License, would
> infringe any intellectual property right held by Licensor.
>
> This means that if you do something that, absent the license, you
> would not have the right to do, we will both agree to interpret that
> as you "accepting" the license, including all of its terms.
>
> This also establishes the "consideration" - you get software, I get
> your compliance with the terms.
>
> >### 2.3. Compliance and Remedies
> > Any failure to act according to the terms and conditions of this
> License places Your use of the Work outside the scope of the License
> and infringes the intellectual property rights of the Licensor. In the
> event of infringement, the terms and conditions of this License may be
> enforced by Licensor under the intellectual property laws of any
> jurisdiction to which You are subject.
>
> This sentence ties the enforceability of the license back to
> intellectual property law. IP law has stronger remedies than contract
> law, so we want to be able to use IP as a tool when enforcing the CAL.
> But note that only the IP owner can sue under the IP laws. What about
> everyone else? What about a Recipient - a user - who wants a copy of
> the source and their data?
>
> > You also agree that either the Licensor or a Recipient (as an
> intended third-party beneficiary) may enforce the terms and conditions
> of this License against You via specific performance.
>
> This calls out to a doctrine in contract law that recognizes that
> sometimes third parties, not named in a contract, also may have a
> stake in the contract being enforced. These are "third party
> beneficiaries." A third party beneficiary doesn't have all the rights
> that the IP holder does. But they can sue, using this clause, for
> "specific performance" - a legal term that means "you must comply with
> the license terms".
>
> Thanks,
> Van
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190819/6cd530d2/attachment.html>