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

[Bruce Perens]

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:59 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> I assume that most of the content of this message is deliberate
> overstatement in the service of either humor or sarcasm.
>

Not at all. It illustrated from the non-programmer, non-lawyer's
perspective just how impossible compliance is. *They can't do it on their
own. *The way I wrote that is exactly what they would face.


> With reference to the substantive assertion that the GPL is uncomplicated,
> I will just note that there are still corner cases in terms of GPL
> compliance that are subject to debate.
>

This may be, but we do have a really large non-lawyer community who
identify with its goals and are reasonably confident in their understanding
of it, and who have committed a really large body of property to be managed
under its terms. Unlike CAL, it received the attention of attorneys (a team
of 40 in the case of GPL3) but is not so unabashedly a license for *lawyers
*to interpret.

> But as it does not fall to me to define Free Software, so neither does
that privilege arrogate to you.

It's a little late for that, as far as defining Open Source is concerned.
But this is diversion. Two definitions do exist, your terms comply with
neither, and your answer is only that the privilege of *re-defining *doesn't
fall to me.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190510/48586cb7/attachment.html>