[License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:16 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

>   Simon had asked about the approval process for AGPL, I just pulled up
> the timeline.
>

 And I wasn't asking about the approval process for the AGPL!

I am looking for the archives of the public discussions of the potential
impact of networked-use triggers in licenses when applied in connection
with proprietary relicensing. This was in response to Richard's comment "It
matters whether proprietary relicensing is the primary use case" since it
seems clear that proprietary licensing will use whatever mechanism places
the greatest burden on peer contributors in the community so obviously
would have been fully explored before AGPL was finalised.

This is by way of exploration of the proposal that OSI should review all
the potential uses of a license in addition to the conformance of the
license with the OSD. That proposal is just as novel as the other proposal
that copyleft licenses should be used for years in advance of OSI approval,
so also deserves scrutiny.

S.
(Personally)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200103/e642b90c/attachment.html>