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

[VanL]

Hi Pam,

I'd like to tease apart your objection a little more.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:50 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

> I don't see how data fits that model, or at least how it does in this
> license. In what way would the ability to use the software fail if the
> "No Withholding User Data" clause didn't exist? I understand that it may
> be true for certain types of software, I assume the software that is the
> intended use case for this license. I'm open to understanding it; I can
> be convinced but it hasn't happened yet. Even if convinced though, I
> suspect my view will be that the use of the license has to be cabined in
> some way to that particular use case and not susceptible to use with
> types of software where it simply creates an additional collateral
> burden for the user, the same as watering my plants.
>

My first question would be whether your issue is with "data" per se.
Because if so, I would point out that a number of the elements included in
"complete corresponding source" are conceptually data, and separate from
the software in a copyright sense, but still required to fully utilize the
software in all contexts.

I assume that you accept these elements of complete corresponding source.
But if so, that suggests that the issue is not "data," but how closely the
data is tied to the work.

Bruce's - and your - arguments are frequently addressed to what I might
term "data in the large." Bruce made this point explicitly, by invoking the
slippery slope argument. However, should we be looking more specifically at
the CAL's requirements? They were written to be narrow and closely tied to
the actual capability to use the software.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/04cf3be2/attachment.html>