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

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:42 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> On 8/22/19 3:29 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > This is a contractually-required performance requirement which attempts
> > to synthesize a data right which does not actually exist in the local
> > jurisdiction. And thus it is the same as every approach to OSI with a
> > license that attempts to enforce something that might properly be a law,
> > but isn't, so we'll try to make it a license term instead.
>
> I have no opinion on whether something is legally enforceable; I leave
> that to the lawyers.
>

Sorry, I did not pose this as an argument about whether the term could be
enforced. The point is that something like data rights would more properly
be made a law. In fact, I hear they made it one in Europe. But it's not a
law everywhere, so we will try to create our own law through our license
terms and make it one that way.

And I submit that we've seen people try to make their own law that way many
times, and we have generally rejected the license for doing so.

Your invokation of OSD#6 on this was *definitely* a statement that one
> party's rights are more important than another's.


Not at all. The *effect *of interpretation of any rule or law may happen to
advantage one party over another.  But the determination must always be
made by evaluating the rule or law, not the importance of one party in the
dispute versus the other. I would imagine that is a fundamental of
jurisprudence, although I would not be one to take on such airs as to call
this jurisprudence.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/902bde74/attachment-0001.html>