[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

[Joshua R. Simmons]

That's out of line, Bruce. I'm not sure where this FUD is coming from, but
it's inappropriate.

Regardless of my own views, I quite value Bradley's contribution, as well
as Van's engaging the process and responding to criticism in good faith.

I've been following the discussions closely and, frankly, it seems a decent
model of critical civil discourse. Let's keep it that way.

(Apologies for the re-send, had to square away some issues with my mailing
list membership.)

Josh Simmons, VP at Open Source Initiative (Tax ID 91-2037395)
@joshsimmons <http://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | josh at opensource.org |
1-707-600-6098
| bluesomewhere on Freenode
ad astra per aspera 🚀


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:53 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <
license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> Don't waste your time, Bradley. They were told not to listen to you,
> either.
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>
>> I can't find an example when OSI approved a novel copyleft license that
>> hadn't yet been used in practice and therefore had no track record of use
>> for any FOSS project.  It was once somewhat common for OSI to approve
>> licenses that were used by only one entity, and most of those licenses
>> were
>> never used beyond the one project, and even most of those entities have
>> deprecated those by now.  (OSI also made a decision to cease considering
>> such single-use licenses.)  Rapid acceptance of a novel licenses, so far
>> unused in practice, causes confusion in the FOSS community.
>>
>> Folks have shouted down Bruce as he wonders how Van's license will be used
>> in practice.  I think Bruce has made a useful point on this thread: as a
>> general matter, it's relevant that we consider how the license impacts
>> users' *and* software publishers' software freedoms in *practice*, not
>> merely *in theory*.
>>
>> In that regard, I'd like to know if the project that plans to use this
>> license will be inbound=outbound (i.e., is the entity that's promulgating
>> this new license willing to bound themselves by the license terms)?  Van,
>> could you tell us, on behalf of your client (who appears to be the only
>> potential licensor interested in this license), what their contribution
>> plans are regarding this license?  Are they planning to accept
>> contributions
>> under this license, and thus be bound by it for their FOSS projects?
>> If not, why not?
>> --
>>
>> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
>>
>> Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
>> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200101/1c845d05/attachment-0001.html>