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

[Bruce Perens]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

>
> On 8/23/2019 2:21 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> > Proposed where? That's not the only possible use case for the
> license itself as far as I can see. If it was, then it would make more
> sense to me.
>

Van attempts to rationalize the data terms (and I am fine with calling them
data terms) as a logical implication of copyleft. We must share the data as
we share the source, or the program can't be run by everyone. I don't find
this a valid argument and would not blame you for finding it confusing.

Using my website example, I have a contact form widget. People can submit
> data through it but I can certainly run the widget without anyone ever
> contacting me.


The entire purpose here is to run a distributed application hosting network
(holo.host) that allows peers to put up their own hosts and gain some sort
of credit for operating them. The purpose of the questionable license term
is that they don't want to have people sequester user data which they won't
share with the rest of the peers - which would mean that only hosts that
have your data would be able to participate on your behalf, rather than the
whole network. This is all fine, but it's not Open Source as defined.
Nothing in the OSD is intended to keep people from partitioning a network
for their own purposes, even if such purposes are generally considered to
be hostile, nor should it be. And building license terms that guarantee
such a peer to peer network can run is a fine goal, although I doubt they
have yet encountered all of the challenges such a license must defend from,
and this will be an iterative process. When they get reasonably far, they
should make a manifesto and give it a name. It's not the Open Source brand.

I would encourage you to keep participating as much as you wish, despite
the fact that this is exactly what I am criticized for. I just can't see a
way to do this fairly without free discussion, especially since IMO Van is
wont to use rhetorical devices, semantics, and in general divert from what
we should be discussing. I am also finding Simon's participation difficult,
in that he tends to post his arguments in shorthand without enough basis to
really understand them.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/6d3f6942/attachment.html>