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

[Bruce Perens]

Pam succumbed to an automatic mailing address book faux pas. People you
frequently discuss with via a mailing list tend to appear in your automatic
address book as the list rather than their actual email address. I have
done this before as well. I replied without examining the address.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:36 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


-- 
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/f07b59c3/attachment-0001.html>