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

[VanL]

Hi Bradley,

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:16 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:

> However, you seemed to have missed that I also gave the example of
> copyleft-next, for which none of your recent arguments are relevant [...]
>

You are right, copyleft-next is engaging in a public drafting process, and
has not submitted the license to any authority. On the other hand, it also
has a big "DO NOT USE AS A LICENSE" written across the top of the draft, so
it is hard to know if this is meant to be more than a drafting exercise.


> Anyway, parts of your point actually support mine: your recent email
> indicates that you and your client very much want the amazingly valuable
> commodity that OSI controls: permission to call your work an "OSI approved
> license" .  In fact, you seem to argue that you need such an endorsement
> from
> either OSI or FSF to succeed.


Absolutely, I want to be able to refer to the CAL as an OSI-approved open
source license. As I have said before, I am trying to go about this in the
"right" way. I don't see that there is anything nefarious about drafting a
license and submitting it for approval, nor engaging in advocacy for the
same.


> Yet, I don't really find the "you have to
> endorse this license because it won't be successful otherwise" as a
> compelling argument for why the OSI should approve a new, unused license on
> the timeline the drafting authority dictates.


This has never been my position. And I am not so presumptuous as to think I
can dictate anything to the OSI. Instead, I have tried at every turn to
comply with and respect OSI's processes.


> OSI's primary mandate is deciding whether a license is good for OSI's
> charitable mission.
>

Absolutely - that is why the thrust of all my comments has been to show how
the CAL fits with the OSD, is in accord with various precedents, or fits in
with the broader sweep of the FOSS community.

Addressing your commentmore generally, though, there are a lot of concerns
with which I don't necessarily agree. For example, I don't think that
discussing this for literally a year is "in a hurry to expedite approval."
I don't think that whether or not my client is a for-profit business is
very relevant to the analysis of the license. Does it matter that it is
part of the plan to spin off the Holochain assets to a 501(c)(3)
foundation? (It is, by the way). But I=it shouldn't make a difference.

Nevertheless, I understand that others, including yourself, feel
differently, and so I have endeavored to be as absolutely transparent as
possible. But at some point, there needs to be a true Scotsman that can
comply with all the unwritten and ever-changing rules, including the newly
articulated "requires 6+ years of public use" requirement that you are
proposing.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200103/eafd15cd/attachment-0001.html>