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

[Henrik Ingo]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:30 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
> wrote:
>
>> I was lazy and didn't include a link, but I was really referencing - if
>> not exactly quoting - your own words from March:
>> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/004014.html
>>
>> It seems your mind has changed now that we are discussing a different
>> license?
>>
>
> So, I am having trouble seeing how declining to give FSF a unilateral veto
> power on license-review, something we have never even thought of doing with
> anyone, places us in an adversary relationship with FSF.
>
>
The sub-thread that this discussion originates in was responding to Bradley
suggesting that a new copyleft license (such as CAL) must only be approved
by, or even submitted to, OSI if it has been authored with a similar
process as the AGPL was, for at least as many years, and only if it was
first endorsed by the FSF. And also only if submitted by a non-profit
license steward. After re-reading your replies, I realize now you may have
simply talked about something else completely, but this is what me and Van
were talking about.

Even then, your omission to address this topic makes it seem you don't
disagree with Bradley. So you can take this as an opportunity to clarify
your position.

It's unclear to me why you think anyone here is adversarial to the FSF.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190829/f4b115a7/attachment.html>