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

[Bruce Perens]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:56 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

>
> On 12/6/2019 3:30 AM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> If your meaning is that the patents will block
> implementation of similar software that would be under a different open
> source license, I agree that's the case. However, that is the case for
> any open source licensed software covered by patents no matter what the
> license is.


Pam,

I think you're missing why this is different from other licenses. The
problem is that to assure that the data terms are applied to the entire
network, they _must_ assert their patents against any interoperable Open
Source software that is not licensed under those terms.

In contrast, although a number of Open Source licenses include patent
grants, I don't actually know of the licensed patents *ever* being asserted
against other Open Source projects, whether or not they commit the sin of
interoperability. But in this case, interoperability must be vigorously
prevented.

And this seems fundamentally hostile to Open Source and, if it's
implemented, very divisive and damaging to the community.

And they could avoid all of this nonsense by having an operational contract
for their network, rather than attempting to load this into a copyright
license.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191206/917f34f4/attachment.html>