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

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:43 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

> If it does relate to the approval of the CAL, I need more of a roadmap for
> where you're going with it.
>

Hi Pam,

The Holochain seems to be relevant to the overall approval of the license,
since I do not understand why a contract between its operators would not be
a better way of enforcing data freedom, and thus why these terms absolutely
must be placed in an Open Source license.

This latest series of questions started out an an exploration of whether
the data terms were able to be trivially overridden by anyone who
constructed an interoperable program. If this was so, I believe there would
have been less reason to approve the license, the data terms being its main
differentiating feature.

But this led to the much more concerning discovery that the plan is to
block interoperable Open Source software through the use of software
patents.

I can't remember any time in the history of Open Source when a license
submitter, or anyone else at all, approached the Open Source initiative
with a plan to block implementation of Open Source using software patents.
Not to mention one which was well-received by the OSI and its license
committee which worked to accommodate the plan. I hope you understand how
distressing this is.

I am also concerned that the license committee is now holding Ex Parte
proceedings, or at least Van reports such, and does not seem to have any
sunshine proceess in which OSI members learn in detail what happened in
those proceedings.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191206/61396ffb/attachment.html>