[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
bruce at perens.com
Fri Jun 28 01:17:14 UTC 2019
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:34 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> there seems to be a belief that a very strong copyleft is
> and therefore harms software freedom.
I think you're misusing the word "copyleft" here. You propose that a
"strong copyleft" would include restrictions which would never have been
considered in scope for "copyleft" by Richard, who coined the word, or by
FSF, which is its steward.
It is not at all the *strength *of the copyleft that some find
objectionable, but *what *is restricted. Thus, a copyleft which restricted
what GPL restricts today, but in language which was "stronger": more likely
to apply, win in court, etc.; would not be objectionable.
In this case, a use restriction was included. I don't believe it would be
accurate to call the result "copyleft" at all. It's something else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review