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

[Pamela Chestek]

On 12/26/19 5:58 PM, VanL wrote:
> Hi Pam,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 8:05 AM Pamela Chestek 
> <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
>
>     The Holochain website talks about doing things like running a social
>     network client. Would that social network software have to be
>     under an
>     open source license?
>
>
> This comes down to the licensor's choice. If the licensor used the CAL 
> without the Combined Works Exception, then this would have the effect 
> of ensuring that the software stayed open source - modulo standard 
> copyright rules that would tend to allow different licenses as the 
> link between the CAL-licensed framework and other software became more 
> attenuated.
>
> In the case of Holochain, Holo intends to use the Combined Works 
> exception to allow differently-licensed software "on top" of the 
> CAL-licensed framework. As an analogy, think of the external vs. 
> internal interfaces split already used in the Linux kernel.

Isn't it more similar to the outcome if the Linux kernel hadn't 
clarified that what is in user space didn't need to be under the GPL? If 
the Linux kernel was under the CAL, wouldn't all the applications that 
run on it also have to be under open source licenses, unless the 
licensor had the Combined Works exception?

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
>
> Thanks,
> Van
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191227/d51c38d5/attachment-0001.html>