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

[Bruce Perens]

Van,

Isn't referring to the AGPL just distraction from the issue at hand? A
restriction is a restriction. One should not say "without restriction" and
"but never for anyone but you and your affiliate" in the same breath. One
or the other might be true, but not both.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:47 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:36 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>
>> Van,
>>
>> By your definition, "run for yourself without restriction" means "but not
>> serving anyone else". That seems like such a large restriction that the
>> statement "you can run the program for yourself without restriction" is
>> obviously not true.
>>
>
> Running something for yourself would be just fine. But the CAL says you
> can run for affiliates as well. That is very significant - and a contrast
> with the AGPL. So I completely disagree.
>
> Thanks,
> Van
>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/7592c3cb/attachment.html>