[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

[VanL]

Hi Henrik,

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:48 PM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> For my taste the new  text is even too narrow. The whole point of software
> freedom is that a derived work need not be "substantially identical" to its
> ancestor. But from a practical point of view that is still sufficient to
> guarantee that I can get a copy of my own data. Once I'm in possession of
> it, I can then proceed to also use it for less identical use cases. I
> understand that this very narrow text is necessary now to make it clear to
> everyone that this principle is well within the sphere of the OSD.
>

You have the right of it here: " Once I'm in possession of it, I can then
proceed to also use it for less identical use cases." The purpose here is
to help identify what must be provided by a licensee. It does not limit
what a Recipient can do with the code+data once it is in the Recipient's
possession.



> The other issue that was widely discussed, not the least by myself, were a
> couple individual words like "aspect" and "made perceptible" that make
> sense from a copyright law point of view, but are unusual words in a
> software license. I had argued that it's unclear what exactly could be
> claimed by those words and that they seem to present more of a risk than
> benefit. I was curious to hear either from Van or Pam whether you discussed
> this issue in the latest round at all? At minimum, I would hope to see an
> FAQ entry explaining what can and cannot be targeted by those words. After
> all, I have frequently asked this question ;-)
>

Again, I think you have the right of it: the words "make sense from a
copyright law point of view." I have resisted providing a gloss on this
language because it is important that the words stand for themselves -
after all, that is how a court would (primarily) interpret the license. My
subjective intention is largely irrelevant.

Nevertheless, I have tried to make it so that even if those particular
words may be "unusual... in a software license," that they are easily and
readily comprehensible so that someone would be unlikely to be surprised by
anything a judge might end up saying about how those were interpreted.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191205/fb8f4058/attachment-0001.html>