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

[VanL]

>
> Bruce wrote:
> > However, if we do end up being forced to live with API copyrights, we
> will in turn adopt licenses that require that people who copy our APIs
> share their software. It's going to be our only defense. The asymmetry of
> having everyone else share our APIs with impunity while we can share none
> of theirs would be unworkable for Open Source / Free Software. So, the
> Supreme Court might fundamentally change Open Source / Free Software. Be
> warned.
>

I've been saying this for years - that Oracle v. Google could fundamentally
changing open source law. While many on this list get it, I don't think
that realization has sunk in for most people. Put aside the network aspect.
How many reimplementations of the GNU readline interface are there? How
many bashisms have made it into other shells?Under Oracle v. Google, those
are derivative works.

The CAL reflects my belief - in which I would be thrilled to be wrong -
that we have already entered the world in which licenses like the CAL are
necessary, and that the CAL only reflects the law as it has been revealed
to be.

Thanks,
Van




__________________________
Van Lindberg
van.lindberg at gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985



> I've been saying this for years - that Oracle v. Google has the
> possibility of fundamentally changing open source law. While many on this
> list get it, I don't think that realization has sink in most places. For
> example, put aside the network aspect. How many reimplementations of the
> GNU readline interface ate there?
>
>
> __________________________
> Van Lindberg
> van.lindberg at gmail.com
> m: 214.364.7985
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190501/9c4563e6/attachment.html>