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

[Simon Phipps]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:38 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> It matters whether proprietary relicensing is the primary use case for
> at least a couple of reasons. First, there is the long general history
> of this technique being used, in effect, as a disguised attempt to
> inhibit software freedom, particularly for commercial users.


I'm interested in wider consideration of the community norms for this use
case. Do you by any chance have a pointer to the archives of the discussion
of this use case as it related to the design and approval of AGPL (not just
at OSI obnviously as it was brought here fully formed)? I realise the
license was created independently of the companies abusing it, but the
consideration of creation of license terms ripe for abuse would obviously
still apply and I would like to study the prior discussion as I was only
involved in the GPLv3 process and not the AGPL process.

S.
(personally)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200102/c54235ee/attachment.html>