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

[VanL]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:09 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:52 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  It's not the ease of compliance, it's the fact that there is a
> compliance requirement at all when no other license has one in the same
> circumstance.
>
> The AGPL also imposes a compliance requirement in your hypothetical
> situation. If you install an AGPL-licensed plugin in your website (in
> any manner, even choosing it from a plugin repository offered by the
> website software project's operators), and the users of your website
> interact with that plugin over the network, then you are obligated to
> provide the source code to your users if the copy you are operating
> *has been modified*.
>

Relevant to this discussion: I know some software authors who consider
construe this requirement strictly: If the source as downloaded is not
exactly the same as the source as deployed, it is "modified." This means
that under the AGPL, even the minor changes needed for customization result
in the software being "modified" and result in compliance requirements.

While this is an aggressive interpretation, it is not clearly wrong, nor is
it unsupported by the AGPL text. Thus, the compliance burden between the
CAL and the AGPL would be identical for Pam's case.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/90cf56ab/attachment.html>