[License-discuss] [License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Sat Jan 4 18:49:24 UTC 2020

Moving this thread to license-discuss. The discussion on license-review 
should be about the merits of the license. A discussion of the OSI 
license review process itself should be on license discuss.


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 1/3/20 11:49 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> VanL wrote this evening:
>>   comply with all the unwritten and ever-changing rules, including the newly
>>   articulated "requires 6+ years of public use" requirement that you are
>>   proposing.
> I don't make the rules; in this context, I'm just an individual interested in
> FOSS licensing sharing my opinion.  Your license is unique and enters
> unprecedented ground that no FOSS license covered before in 30+ years.  It's
> entirely reasonable to give unprecedented scrutiny to a copyleft license that
> reaches well beyond what has been previously contemplated for copyleft.
> --
> 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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list