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

[Bruce Perens]

Henrick, I think you aren't considering the problems created for the
community in approving licenses. IMO most folks in the community would be
just fine if OSI stopped approving licenses. Consider that FSF really only
has a few licenses that they promote, and that a decade goes by between
changes. Nobody criticizes that. While we are starting to see reasons for
GPL 4, nobody is in a hurry.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:11 PM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruce Perens via License-review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> > What I am finding bothersome about most of the network copyright
> proposals is that they change the fundamental deal of Free Software / Open
> Source. No more running for any use, no more sympathy for eveyone but
> proprietary software makers - there is a new set of evils including, in
> this case, data hoarders.
>
> While the CAL seems to overstep boundaries in a number of ways, and
> the requirements on user data are one example of a requirement at
> least not obviously allowed by the OSD... I want to take exception
> with your general policy statement here that network copyleft licenses
> are all but undesired. SaaS (and similar) vendors are proprietary
> software vendors. In the 80s, users could not modify their software,
> because they didn't get source code with the binaries. In 2019 users
> can't modify their software because they have neither the binary or
> the source code. Using new copyleft licenses to address this situation
> is a good idea now just like the GPL was a good idea then.
>
> Some might even argue they're needed and welcome. I personally hope
> Van's client will be willing to scale down their ambitions, so that
> the OSI could approve a revised version of the CAL eventually.
>
> > Approving the network copyright licenses would be a slippery slope to
> approving a whole family of worse ones and IMO, people would abscond and we
> would end with FSF being looked to as the arbiter of licenses. Which
> wouldn't be so bad for the community and FSF, just for OSI. The new
> generation of leadership at FSF and SFC is pretty cool.
> >
>
> Note btw that the OSI can also fade into irrelevance the exact
> opposite way from what you suggest. If OSI fails to approve licenses
> that meet the OSD (and also are otherwise seen to be sound), then
> eventually the community will use those licenses anyway. And also the
> FSF might approve them. Network copyleft is clearly an area where
> currently supply and demand don't meet, and eventually there will be
> new licenses in this area that the OSI needs to approve. (But there
> are good justifications for rejecting CAL, so this concern does not
> apply today.)
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190501/61f03245/attachment-0001.html>