[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Pamela Chestek]

On 6/28/19 11:33 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Not sure about that; this list is noisy enough that I think most of us
> hold back if we agree with an already-stated viewpoint.  If you really
> want to get a straw poll of agreement, it would be far better to have a
> tool that let us vote up/down critiques of proposed licenses than wait
> for "me, too" posts on a mailing list.
I don't understand how "silence means agreement" can be a meaningful way
to understand a community's views. Assume there are 100 people, 99 of
which are in agreement and 1 who holds the opposite view. One person
expresses the view of the 99 and the one person with the opposite view
expresses the contrary view. The 98 don't say anything because their
view has been expressed, but to an outsider it looks like no agreement
whatsoever. "Silence means agreement" can only be true if only one
opinion has been stated.

These are also not questions that are as easy as yes/no. And the goal is
consensus, not majority rule. What I find informative and helpful is
where people give their reasons about why they share the view, or
explain why the opposite view is poorly conceived. Which might change
minds and aid in reaching consensus.
>
> For my part, the CAL already had enough substantial objections to it
> recorded that it didn't feel like it needed any further discussion. I
> mean, if the engine is on fire, I'm not gonna check the tires for air.
Fair enough, but the OSI needs to do better than that. There has been a
lot of criticism of OSI for not explaining its reasoning for its
decisions, and the absence of any explanation doesn't help the license
submitter if they are just left to guess at what needs to change for a
revised version to be accepted.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com