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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

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/