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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/22/2019 9:08 PM, Kevin P. Fleming 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*. It is not clear whether the license is only
> triggered by modifications that you made, or by modifications made by
> the party who provided the software to you, but if it is only
> triggered when *you* make modifications then there is a
> aircraft-carrier-sized escape hatch in the AGPL. In any case, as the
> operator of the website you would need to be aware of this requirement
> and be able to determine whether the copy you are operating can be
> considered *modified*.
You pointed out the difference, it has to be modified, plus it must be
software that involves remote interaction. That suggests at least some
degree of familiarity with software beyond simple use, so the compliance
obligation perhaps isn't as unreasonable. You seem to be suggesting that
an "aircraft-carrier-sized escape hatch" is a bad thing, but I assume
it's for people like me. I don't have any compliance requirement for my
Twitter widget, for two reasons, I didn't modify the software and it's
not interactive. It's the exclusion that makes the AGPL consistent with
a foundational aspect of the GPL licenses, the act of running the
software is not restricted.

Van, saying that an extreme interpretation of the AGPL is what your
software's intended scope is doesn't win you any points in my book. Some
people hold the view that the AGPL goes too far already, so saying that
your license bakes that extreme view in only works against you IMO.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

Pam