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

VanL van.lindberg at gmail.com
Mon May 13 21:20:01 UTC 2019

Hi Ingo,

Thanks for the... ambiguous review? I think that you have put your finger
on a number of key points. You may or may not agree with what I am
proposing - and at this point I am not sure - but it seems from here that
you generally understand it.

One quick clarification, though:

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:33 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>

> Previously on license-review the License Zero license proposed a
> requirement to publish anything *created with* the licensed software....
> Software created with GCC is not required to be GPL licensed, and I
> wouldn't expect to
> have to publish every text I wrote with OpenOffice.

This is not analogous to the CAL. The CAL doesn't impose a need to publish
"every text you wrote with OpenOffice" or all the "software created with
GCC." Instead it just makes it so that someone couldn't keep your notes or
your software from you.

As you later point out:

> Within the background set by both of those then... It still seems to
> me that CAL has scoped this requirement in a way that is rather well
> justified:
> "“User Data” means any data that is either a) an input to, or b) an
> output from, the Workor a Modified Work, in which a third party other
> than the Licensee has a Lawful Interestin the data."
> - It is not unreasonable that a user has the right to access data that
> is theirs. (e.g. a photo that I own copyright in) This doesn't require
> the user to give away rights to the data (as License Zero did).

Correct. Just to emphasize this a little further, imagine a network-hosted
compiler. Would you expect to be able to get the binaries that resulted
from the compilation of your source code? Of course you would. But under
all current licenses, the freedom to get your own binaries from the
operator and run them in another context - to "run your program for any
purpose" - is not an explicitly protected part of software freedom. Under
the CAL it would be.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190513/541bf24e/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list