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

[McCoy Smith]

>>From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:05 PM
>>To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>>Subject: Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

 

>>***** Is one takeaway here that people should start by ignoring the OSI process and just start using the license? 

 

That seems to be a view that has been expressed by several on the list, and I feel like that sets up a Catch 22: you aren’t supposed to submit it until it has been finalized and used, and you aren’t supposed to call it “open source” until it gets on the OSI approved license list, but you likely will have a harder time gaining adoption or positive reception without the ability to use that term.  

 

Is there an interim term that one can use in the interstitial period, that would at least give potential users the understanding that it meets the OSD, but is pending OSI submission and approval until it has proven itself?  A term that would not bring on the open source TM police, but reasonably suggests the license is open source-ish?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200102/2a843d9b/attachment-0001.html>