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

[Joshua R. Simmons]

I agree, this is definitely a bit of a Catch-22.

I for one would encourage people to submit licenses to LR as soon as they
have a sound draft for review, rather than trying to build up adoption with
the promise that the license in question is OSD conformant and will
eventually be submitted to LR. (And I'd encourage people to engage LD even
earlier.)

That would seem to me the simplest way to resolve the issue... and it would
make it clear that past cases, like the roll out of SSPL, are an
antipattern to be discouraged.


On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 14:42 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> *>>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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200102/d5ac287b/attachment.html>