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

[VanL]

It's not just that, though. It's the network aspect, which currently only
had one option: the AGPL. But the AGPL's hook is infirm, as discussed
above. It is ambiguous as to when and to whom it applies in some very
common situations, and for many parties it doesn't solve the "problem" it
was designed to solve.

APIs plus public performance is intelligible, has applicable case law to
reason from, at least by analogy, and is firmly grounded in the reserved
rights under copyright.

Thanks,
Van

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

On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:22 AM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> Van, I suggest that you *not* anticipate the crash by pushing the car off
> of the cliff.
>
>
>
>
> We *may* lose. We presently have a single court decision, and nobody can
> tell what the supes will do. By approving a license with API copyright
> terms, OSI would concede the fight before it's lost.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/aedd5c5c/attachment-0001.html>