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

[Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock]

For completeness, there is also a slight variation of MS-PL that I have seen called MS-LPL, the Microsoft Limited Public License.  It adds a platform limitation (e.g., "This software may only be used to develop an application intended to be run on the Microsoft Windows Operating System").  The wording of that limitation evolved over time for different Microsoft platforms.

For a while, this was the default license for all the sample code on MSDN, although this is no longer the case.

-Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Rick Moen
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 10:56 PM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The
> Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)
>
> Quoting John Cowan (cowan at ccil.org):
>
> > Perhaps you also remember when I submitted MS-PL and another MS
> > license a few years before.  They were rejected on the perfectly
> > correct process grounds that I could propose them but I couldn't
> > change them if the OSI requested changes (they were too new to fit
> > under the "legacy" category).  I accepted that and withdrew them, but
> > I continued to maintain (in the face of attacks on Groklaw) that the
> > licenses were nevertheless open source, and eventually OSI agreed with
> > me.
>
> FWIW, I dealt with the attacks on the Groklaw site by posting at length,
> there, rebutting local critics, pointing out that Ms-PL and Ms-CL (Microsoft
> Community License, the reciprocal one) were clearly OSD-compliant on their
> merits, going through particulars repeatedly, rejecting irrelevant objections
> as irrelevant, and noting the irrelevancy of some stabs at argumentum ad
> hominem.  It took a few days, but the point seemed to then get through.
>
> To the best of my recollection, there were only three such 'Shared Source'
> licences MSFT produced on that occasion (2007, launched into the world by
> Mr. Bill Hilf via an OSCON keynote), the third one (Microsoft Reference
> License, Ms-RL) omitting rights of modification and redistribution, intended
> e.g., for reference copies of software libs -- obviously not open source.
>
> --
> Cheers,                          "Maybe the law ain’t perfect, but it’s the only
> Rick Moen                        one we got, and without it we got nuthin'."
> rick at linuxmafia.com              -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875
> McQ! (4x80)
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org