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

[Bruce Perens]

Oh how the heck did I do this. This message was not meant for the list and
I am still trying to figure out how my mailer turned a reply to all.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:32 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> 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
>


-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/3984c7c3/attachment.html>