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

[Bruce Perens]

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> 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 | 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> 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> 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
>>>
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200101/52a96acd/attachment.html>