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

[Bruce Perens]

Henrik,

Sure, you can't pull arbitrary stuff off of the internet without
intellectual property complications. But the entire point of the Open
Source brand is that it is SAFE to use from an intellectual property
perspective, and with proper attention to your obligations, safe to modify,
share, and redistribute.

Open Source is not random code from the net with intellectual property
submarines that attack the naive user. And that should remain the case.

Thanks

Bruce



On Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 8:49 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:

> Pam
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:10 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As a complete duffer in software, this provision is troublesome to me. It
>> goes well beyond offering a service. This is the same example I used on the
>> last review of this license, so forgive me for repeating it. Suppose I put
>> up my homemade website and want a widget that displays my Twitter feed. I
>> look at my options among the various addons and extensions and pick one
>> that looks like it's just the ticket. Woe is me if I picked one under the
>> CAL. Having the widget on my website is not a private use and so I have to
>> make the source code available, plus provide notices and attribution on my
>> website for the widget. I suspect anyone would be surprised that they had
>> incurred such a burden.
>>
>> Still speaking entirely personally.
>>
>>
> It's already been pointed out that the exact same questions arise with the
> AGPL license. But I wanted to point out that your hypothetical really
> highlights how it's simply not a realistic goal to say that a user must be
> able to safely copy code from the internet without understanding licensing.
> That is not the case for software in general, nor open source. A lot of
> code on github is not under any open source license anyway, so just
> cavalierly copying some widget code to your website is a bad idea. And
> that's why at least in my university CS education we were trained not to do
> that.
>
> That said, OSI should not approve licenses with unexpected or hazardous
> requirements on users. I should not be obligated to water your plants, for
> example.
>
> (If your widget is client side JavaScript then also GPL and LGPL will
> require you to provide source.)
>
>  henrik
> --
> henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
> +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
> www.openlife.cc
>
> My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190824/c33ab79c/attachment-0001.html>