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

[Bruce Perens]

And we don't need courts, because lawyers all agree with each other. :-)

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:36 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20190430/ffd7dc9b/attachment.html>