[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

[Pamela Chestek]

On 8/22/2019 9:12 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> But would it not be sufficient in this case to simply tell folks where
> you got the source, given that it's a public repository? You didn't
> modify it yourself.

Not necessarily. The source code obligation says that the repository
must persist as long as I am using the software and for a year after
that. So do I keep checking the original source and make sure they
haven' t changed it and it's still the same software that I used? What
if they update and I don't? And to have to do that for a year after I'm
not even using the software? This avenue for compliance is pretty
burdensome.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:09 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us
> <mailto:kevin%2Bosi at km6g.us>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:52 PM Pamela Chestek
>     <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >  It's not the ease of compliance, it's the fact that there is a
>     compliance requirement at all when no other license has one in the
>     same circumstance.
>
>     The AGPL also imposes a compliance requirement in your hypothetical
>     situation. If you install an AGPL-licensed plugin in your website (in
>     any manner, even choosing it from a plugin repository offered by the
>     website software project's operators), and the users of your website
>     interact with that plugin over the network, then you are obligated to
>     provide the source code to your users if the copy you are operating
>     *has been modified*. It is not clear whether the license is only
>     triggered by modifications that you made, or by modifications made by
>     the party who provided the software to you, but if it is only
>     triggered when *you* make modifications then there is a
>     aircraft-carrier-sized escape hatch in the AGPL. In any case, as the
>     operator of the website you would need to be aware of this requirement
>     and be able to determine whether the copy you are operating can be
>     considered *modified*.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/44a13625/attachment.html>