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

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:44 PM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> 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.
>

I am aware of the length of the AGPL proceeding because I attended a
meeting Bradley held in New York in 2000 asking about how to deal with
Google and its ilk (I'm not sure SaaS was even a common term then). I
suggested that license terms activating on public performance would address
the problem. I might have been the first to do so. But that was my only
active participation in the creation of the license.

I frankly never considered having a waiting period on a license submission.
Obviously, something like changing the OSD would take a longer
consultation. And that gets us to the fundamental question, does the
license as submitted fit the OSD and is it Free Software? I would say no to
fitting the OSD and possibly yes to it being Free Software. The definition
of Free Software, IMO, does too little to maintain that users can actually
practically run the software. The OSD does somewhat more.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190829/041eb454/attachment.html>