[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Fri May 10 11:14:24 UTC 2019
On Thu, May 9, 2019, 11:37 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that you have re-defined the Free Software Foundation's
> version of Software Freedom, arbitrarily, to encompass data rights. It
> doesn't seem that this should be your task alone, or that of your customer.
> Perhaps the Free Software Foundation would want to be involved :-)
As it so happens, I *have* asked the FSF to look at the CAL.
But as it does not fall to me to define Free Software, so neither does that
privilege arrogate to you.
I have explained how the CAL enables Freedom in the Free Software sense,
and shown how it fits within the tradition of Free Software licenses.
I have also explained how the legal mechanisms used in the CAL were drafted
very carefully to conform to the limitations imposed by the OSD.
It appears that you accept that the CAL enables user Freedom, but think the
CAL's protection of user data portability restricts an operator's freedom
to lock down end user data. We are in agreement there.
The difference is that, as you pointed out upthread, you privilege the
operator's ability to lock down the data too highly to give the user a
right of data access.
On that point we disagree.
It seems like that is the definitional question I am submitting to the
board: whether open source as a term encompasses licenses that both
absolutely guarantee operator freedom of action as well as licenses that
impose a duty on operators to ensure that all downstream users receive the
same rights and privileges the operators themselves received.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review