<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Van,<br>
<br>
Can you resubmit following the process described under "Under to
Submit a Request"? <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/approval">https://opensource.org/approval</a>. The most
significant piece that's missing is a plaintext copy.<br>
<br>
However, I won't make you link to earlier public discussions! And
thanks for providing a summary of the history in one email, that is
very helpful.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela Chestek<br>
Chair, License Review Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 8/19/2019 10:28 AM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEMpdfiXsohw2-YbqOjjgdgXj4g5C4_oTyu3cBfk5FFF=w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I noted the recording of the vote on the CAL Beta 1
previously presented here. As seen on the license-discuss
list, I am now submitting CAL Beta 2 for approval. The license
text is here:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PFX7PtPoSbSe7cC7BEoh44OjbWN91-IQOyGzO5Zr-1Q/edit?usp=sharing"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PFX7PtPoSbSe7cC7BEoh44OjbWN91-IQOyGzO5Zr-1Q/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
I have reworked the CAL to remove the reasons for rejection
and to address the concerns that led into the “further
discussion” items. In particular, I worked on laying out the
scope of the private right of use, clarifying when the
conditions apply, and avoiding constructions that may result
in adverse policy inferences. I also simplified the language
to enhance interpretability.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The most controversial aspect of the CAL remains: it
requires someone who is communicating the software (or a part
of the software) to a "Recipient" (a non-affiliated third
party), to also allow that Recipient access to the Recipient's
own user data. To show how this fits into the broader concept
of software freedom, the policy associated with this
requirement is also laid out: to allow a Recipient to fully
use an independent copy of the Work generated from the Source
Code provided with the Recipient’s own User Data.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For those only following this list, I also provided a
changelog on license-discuss [1] which prompted some
discussion. From that discussion, I'll note that Russell
McOrmond is on record as believing that the CAL is part of a
class of licenses - which includes the AGPL, and the GPL as
applied) is not compliant with the OSD. Bruce Perens is on
record as believing the any requirements that an operator
provide user data is a violation of "no field of use"
restriction in OSD 6. Bruce is also on record as believing
that the identification of the private right of use is a field
of use restriction.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Van <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-August/020937.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-August/020937.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>