[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License
bruce at perens.com
Sun Mar 17 23:34:24 UTC 2019
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you on this one. However, the phrasing of this particular
> element was important to my client. I did try to make sure that the
> broader language (as you suggest) was also present - see 2.3(a) and (b).
Could you ask your client to discuss what is important here, a bit more for
I would like to see if cleaner wording will actually be acceptable. Right
now it comes across as a software use restriction, and is possibly
problematical within OSD #6, and I don't think there's any real intentional
reason for that and what the customer wants can be done without any hint of
trouble. Plus although you have added provisions to fill in, the sum is
more complicated than is really necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss