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

[VanL]

Hi Josh,

Two questions:

1. Do you feel that the CAL would be reasonable as-is, in its strong
copyleft form?
2. Do you feel that the CAL's combined work exception would also enable
liberally-licensed web apps in the traditional mode?

Thanks,
Van


On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> On 12/13/19 6:09 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> > The CAL is a very strong copyleft license. How does that affect this
> > hypothetical? Can a CAL-licensed database be used for a node.js-based
> > end-user app?
>
> I don't see why not -- in fact, I anticipate that this will be the
> primary use of the CAL, blockchain folks nonwithstanding.
>
> That's why I'm so interested in making sure that it is viable for that
> use-case.
>
> Note that liberally-licensed code on top of strong-copyleft databases is
> already a commonality in the industry, and is why there are so many
> arguments about how the DB client libraries are licensed.  For example,
> MySQL changing its client library license from LGPL to GPL back in 2006
> caused quite a stir, because it effectively forced relicensing of a
> whole generation of PHP applications.
>
> So I don't think the CAL is novel in that respect.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191218/65c053dd/attachment.html>