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

[Pamela Chestek]

To address any doubt anyone may have, no decision is pre-determined, nor 
is the decision made unilaterally by OSI as an organization without 
respect for the contributions made by the community on L-R and 
elsewhere. I think that's apparent from the vigorous discussion that is 
still ongoing, including active participation by OSI Board members, and 
the length of time that this license has been under review.

Nonetheless, we received, further confirmed, and are honoring Bruce's 
request and he is no longer subscribed to any of the OSI mailing lists.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 1/2/20 12:43 AM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> Josh,
>
> Well, it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically 
> headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting. Fine, 
> do it without me, please. I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and 
> I would have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your 
> server was working. I own an interest in 10 Open Source companies and 
> manage a 50 Million dollar portfolio investing in them. That will keep 
> me involved enough.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:18 PM Joshua R. Simmons 
> <josh.simmons at opensource.org <mailto:josh.simmons at opensource.org>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>             <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
>             http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital <http://OSS.Capital>.
>         _______________________________________________
>         License-review mailing list
>         License-review at lists.opensource.org
>         <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
>         http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital <http://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-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200104/edd54430/attachment.html>