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

[Josh Berkus]

On 8/19/19 1:54 PM, VanL wrote:
> Hi Josh,
> 
> Thanks for the questions.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:31 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org
> <mailto:josh at berkus.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     ### 2.2. Offer and Acceptance
> 
>     - I cannot make heads or tails of this paragraph.  What is it supposed
>     to mean?  Would there be a way to state that in language that would be
>     clearer to a layman?
> 
> 
> This paragraph is legalese that helps establish enforceability.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation of this.

>     #### 4.2.2. No Technical Measures that Limit Access
> 
>     - This paragraph seems ripe for inadvertent violation.  For example, a
>     strict interpretation of this seems to read that you're not allow to
>     place any copy of the code under private-key encryption, even for your
>     own organization's use.  I'd love to see some of the "withold" or other
>     intent language here.
> 
> 
> I would point you to the language near the end of this clause: "You may
> not... limit a Recipient’s ability to access any functionality
> present**in Recipient's independent copy** of the Work, or to deny**a
> Recipient** full control of the **Recipient’s User Data*.*"

Ah, I missed those words.  Makes sense, thanks.

>     ### 5.3. Termination Due to Litigation
> 
>     - Do you want to limit this to patent infringement?  What about other
>     types of legal action, such as claims for damages?
> 
> 
> Right now I am inclined to say no. First, patent litigation seems
> especially damaging, and worth calling out specifically. Second, some
> types of claims we want to allow (such as trademark claims).

Well, I was specifically thinking of warranty suits per (6).  Seems like
those should also terminate any license rights, and (6) does not
specifically say that.

>     ### 7.2. Choice of Jurisdiction and Governing Law
> 
>     - This seems like it could be used to circumvent some of the provisions
>     of the license.  Comment?
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. This applies to a licensee (the person receiving
> the software) suing the licensor (the contributor). The licensor has the
> ability to bring a claim wherever necessary.

Ah, yeah.  And if the licensor wants to mess with the openness of the
source using a compliant jurisdiction, you have to rely on *their*
upstream licensor to bring suit.  Got it.

-- 
Josh Berkus