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

[Josh Berkus]

On 12/6/19 5:27 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Rather than being a moral consideration, it's directly related to our
> mission to protect Open Source and facilitate its development and use
> everywhere. We would create, by our adoption of a license, an area in
> which interoperable software under any of the so-far-approved Open
> Source licenses /can not participate./ If we are to be good stewards of
> Open Source, we should not /constrain/ Open Source this way.

I just don't see how this is different from, well, any other licenses.

I mean, if share software under the Apache License, and someone builds
new, different software that incorporates some of my interface code, I
can assert patent rights against them for the portion of their software
that wasn't copied from me (assuming it violates one or more patents).
That allows me to prevent them from creating "interoperable" software
under a different license.

In the CAL, the other company is copying data and not interface code,
but how is that different, really?  Copying is copying.

-- 
Josh Berkus