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

[Henrik Ingo]

If there was a request from a user to get their user data, then the
clueless operator could also easily publish or approve the queued comments,
and they would be in compliance. This is a first class feature in the
Wordpress GUI, and requires zero coding skills from the operator.

For those who are not intimately familiar with Wordpress... It has been CAL
compliant 13 years ago:
https://en.blog.wordpress.com/2006/08/14/my-comments/

Admittedly the CAL maybe implies data should be exported in some other
format than a HTML page, such as a mysqldump, json, or xml file. But it
doesn't explicitly mandate a specific data format. In the case of the
clueless Wordpress operator presumably administering a fairly low volume
site, it could be argued that a HTML page from where a user can easily
copypaste all of their user data is in fact a good alternative to provide
this data.

IMO the Wordpress example rather strengthens Van's argument that for
realistic scenarios the CAL requirements are not unreasonable. I agree that
there's a discussion worth having about licensors with bad intent, but I
don't support the idea that a license should be rejected based on rather
theoretical corner cases. Especially when - as I illustrated in my previous
email - same corner cases can be constructed for existing licenses like GPL.

henrik

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:26 AM Bruce Perens via License-review <
license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> If they hosted comments on their WordPress blog, and did not approve some
> comments but kept them in the approval queue, this would be sufficient to
> activate the data terms.
>
> I agree with Nigel.
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:53 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 9:18 PM Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A SaaS license is intended to be applied to software that is seen and
>>> used by third parties.
>>>
>>> It is disingenuous for you to imply otherwise.
>>>
>>> Many non-developers have set up their own content management system like
>>> Wordpress on their own servers.  If Wordpress was CAL instead of GPL none
>>> of those users would be able to use WordPress because it’s unlikely that
>>> WordPress is fully compliant under the terms of 4.2.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is an illuminating example. If WordPress was CAL licensed, then all
>> those people hosting their own blogs on WordPress would have to provide a
>> link to or copy of the source code they were using, but that is it. Why?
>> Because they would not be hosting the user data of random readers. The
>> outcome would be essentially the same as the AGPL.
>>
>> Someone would only need to provide additional user data if they did more
>> than host their own blog, but instead moved into the blog hosting business.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Van
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191212/bd4334d1/attachment.html>