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

[Henrik Ingo]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:47 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
> Assume that there is a right of public performance in an API.[^1] What section of the OSD, or well-settled rationale for not approving a license, does this particular provision of the CAL fail?[^2] It exercises no rights outside of copyright law. It serves to make more software available under open source licenses. Why is this not considered "open source"?
>
> My point here is the understandable complaint that the OSI decisionmaking process can be unpredictable. I'm seeing statements that this provision is unusual, or new, or beyond what the FSF was trying to accomplish, but not a reason why it therefore fails the definition.
>
> Pam

With the given assumption, I agree 100%. The problem is that OSI does
not agree with that assumption, and will be one of the last
organizations in the world to do so.

I simply fail to see how this can be unexpected to anyone with enough
competence and experience to credibly submit a new open source license
in the first place. Literally our people are marching in the streets
protesting the creeping expansion of copyright restrictions on
software.

(And yes, I do imply I don't think Van will be terribly shocked by
this response. His client apparently wanted to copyleft an API, he
made a best effort to write such a license, but the idea will not
pass.)

henrik



-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7