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

[Karen M. Sandler]

Since I haven't really been active here in the past (this is my first 
ever post[1]), I want to start by thanking OSI. They are clearly acting 
in good faith in responding to tough criticism and responding as 
helpfully as possible to really tough challenges.  After all, this 
process is run wholly by volunteers.

On 2020-01-02 10:27, Luis Villa wrote:

> If we’re going to add yet another unwritten rule to the long list of
> unwritten rules we might as well just simplify by saying “OSI’s rule is
> that only FSF gets to advance the state of the art in copyleft, 
> everyone
> else is stuck in a vast set of catch-22s that are impossible to
> simultaneously satisfy”.

OSI is a public charity. Public charities must operate exclusively for 
their exempt purpose (the mission for which they are organized) and 
can't operate to the benefit of private individuals (or entities) 
without significantly risking their charitable status. That means that a 
public charity should be thinking about how all of their activities fit 
within their service of the public good. In particular, individuals 
can't be enriched by the org beyond an incidental benefit. If they are, 
it's called "private inurement". For example, a bus service run by a 
charity for private school students turned out to be private inurement.

Our understanding of the societal impact of FOSS licenses has developed 
over the years. We now know that some licenses have ultimately served 
primarily to benefit certain individuals and for-profit companies. I 
think the OSI must consider this when evaluating new licenses, and 
re-examining the OSD itself in the event that the analysis turns out to 
be troubling. I think that the OSI board will make that decision in an 
informed way (and may very well decide here that this doesn't cross that 
line), but surely it's right to ask questions about how a license will 
operate in practice and who it will benefit.

I'm obviously not in any decision-making role here, but to me this means 
that the FSF or another charity that writes a license for the exclusive 
purpose of forwarding an exempt charitable purpose (which is similar to 
that of OSI's mission) is fundamentally an easier analysis as to whether 
its license is appropriate for OSI to approve. Additionally, licenses 
that are already being used clearly to advance software freedom are 
surely much easier to consider.  If a license isn't in use yet, we have 
to imagine its implications. We're largely hoping that we'll guess 
correctly how its provisions will work out in practice and we should all 
be sure to kick the tires as much as we can.

karen


[1] I've avoided this list in the past, as I've seen how difficult it 
can be for participants. I don't think it's unique to this list, but 
it's been especially difficult with this one given my keen interest in 
the subject matter discussed. Thanks to current leadership who have been 
going out of their way to try to make OSI more welcoming and inclusive.



Karen M. Sandler
Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
__________
Become a Supporter today! http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/