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

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Wed May 1 22:24:04 UTC 2019

On 4/27/2019 10:30 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On 4/23/19 10:15 PM, VanL wrote:
>> There is a particular way of locking down a program that is available
>> in hashchain applications; that particular method is addressed in a
>> single clause. That is exactly like anti-Tivoization (which is also
>> addressed in a single clause inspired by the GPLv3, and the
>> anti-circumvention, which is addressed in a third clause - again
>> parallel to the GPLv3).
> On 4/23/19 11:55 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
>> Here you add data to the terms, which none of our other licenses
>> require, and you require it of /users /of the program who are not
>> developers. 
> Bruce does identify what strikes me as a distinction between your
> section 2.3 and the anti-Tivozation clause. The anti-Tivozation clause
> says that where object code is conveyed on certain devices where the
> device is transferred in a way equivalent to ownership, then you must
> give me what is needed to install and execute a modified version of
> the code on the device. That all relates to my right to modify code in
> a meaningful way. Your provision simply says that someone can get a
> copy of their data, as Bruce points out a burden that falls on someone
> who is only running the software. So I don't consider them analogous.

Do you have a comment on this? I share Bruce's concern that Section 2.3
is outside the scope of open source licenses. I'm not buying your
argument that it's the same as anti-Tivoization, for the reason I
described above.


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190501/a2e5c5e1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list