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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Pamela Chestek wrote:
> My point is this [Van's license] is well beyond the AGPL. For the AGPL, two
> more things have to happen before I have to provide the source code, I have
> to have modified the code and a user has to be able to interact with the
> program. For those who think that the AGPL is too far, or the outermost
> appropriate reach for copyleft, the CAL is beyond that.

As folks on the list know, I was involved with Affero GPL's creation.  I
think Pam's analysis is excellent here and right to the point.

Affero GPL was a huge leap and a big change in copyleft policy.  The FSF
authorized a third-party fork for experimentation when the idea was new in
2002 -- precisely because the FSF (as a license steward dedicated to software
freedom) was cautious about expanding copyleft requirements in novel
directions.  That GPL fork (i.e., AGPLv1) was explored in the wild for years
before the FSF made it officially theirs (in 2007) and recommended it.  Even
once the license became officially GNU, the FSF *still* kept it a fork of the
"main license" (i.e., GPL) because loud voices in the community were still
saying: "This is just too radical to be a 'default' copyleft policy."  As I
said in a post on the MongoDB thread last year: the rules shouldn't change
overnight in any culture (be it FOSS or anything else); that creates chaos.
FSF knows this and is therefore careful and deliberate when proposing new
copyleft requirements.  The many new license stewards that have cropped up in
the last year should follow their well-set example.

Of course, I love the AGPL and don't think it's radical, but I know most
people don't agree with me.  I was glad for OSI approval of AGPL, and I wish
it had been faster, but I also understood why it took so long.  Van clearly
loves the license he drafted for his client and is frustrated that most
people don't agree with him.  I feel empathy for Van, who is clearly proud of
this difficult drafting work that seeks to break new policy ground in a
direction that he and his client want.  But new leaps in copyleft policy
shouldn't happen quickly, nor (IMO) be driven by companies.  In particular,
going from "nascent license with radical new policies" to "OSI-approved" in
just a few months is a mistake no matter who wrote the license.  Meanwhile,
as Pam points out, Van's license is an *even more* of a radical leap than the
Affero clause was.  In short, the discussion of this nascent license is,
frankly, too premature for license-review.  Presumably it's reasonable fodder
for license-discuss. :)
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/