Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:31 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Bruce, this seems to be a real stretch about "field of endeavor." What is > the "field?" > Any means of doing business with the software at all! It doesn't seem at all a reach that there is a field of endeavor in doing business. Thanks

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Bruce Perens wrote: > And doesn't this way of stating it make it very clear it's in contravention > of OSD #6? It would certainly be a field of endeavor to run the program for > anyone but yourself, or for anything but a private purpose. Bruce, this seems to be a real stretch about "field of

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:27 PM VanL wrote: > A person can run the unmodified program (and even a modified one) without > having any obligations as long.as they run it for themselves, for their > private purposes. > Van, Haven't you just very clearly characterized this term as a use restriction

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On 8/14/2019 8:26 PM, VanL wrote: Hi Roger, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'd disagree with this characterization: On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:31 PM Roger Fujii > wrote: Even more fundamentally than that is that this section does something that no open

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Hi Roger, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'd disagree with this characterization: On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:31 PM Roger Fujii wrote: > Even more fundamentally than that is that this section does something that > no open source license does (that I'm aware of anyway), which is to create >

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On 8/13/2019 12:04 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: It looks like this is the main reason for objection: /*No Withholding User Data*/ /Throughout any period in which You exercise any of the permissions granted to You under this License, You must also p

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On 8/14/2019 1:41 PM, Howard Chu wrote: Richard Fontana wrote: The precise question here seems to be whether the server operator can be said to be "prominently offer[ing]" the opportunity to receive the source code in this sort of case (the hypothetical where existing LDAP clients cannot recogni

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

Thanks for the clarification. I simply reacted to your saying that private modifications are not necessarily protected by OSD-compliant licenses. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Cowan wrote: > >> I think that OSD #3 does exactly that.

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Cowan wrote: > I think that OSD #3 does exactly that. "The license must allow > modifications and derived works [...]" A license that even conditionally > forbids those activities is not, on my reading, an open source license. > But of course we are not tal

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: The OSD rules don't protect your private activities from the terms of Open > Source licenses. > I think that OSD #3 does exactly that. "The license must allow modifications and derive

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

No argument that the AGPL approach is awkward - both for non-GUI software and also for a non-network library like BerkeleyDB. Then we get to the question what if a user interacts with AGPL LDAP server through a non-AGPL proxy? To fulfill the letter of the requirement though, wouldn't it be possibl

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > OpenLDAP does not provide an interactive user interface, so that provision of > AGPL does not apply to it. It provides an interface meant to  work only with > programs,  rather than a human being. In contrast, the first generation of > internet servers wh

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

OpenLDAP does not provide an interactive user interface, so that provision of AGPL does not apply to it. It provides an interface meant to work only with programs, rather than a human being. In contrast, the first generation of internet servers where intended to respond to connection from the tel

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Richard Fontana wrote: > The precise question here seems to be whether the server operator can > be said to be "prominently offer[ing]" the opportunity to receive the > source code in this sort of case (the hypothetical where existing LDAP > clients cannot recognize the extension). To the extent th

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Howard Chu wrote: >> >> Richard Fontana wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote: >>> I think what you're saying is that, assuming your interpretation of >>> AGPL (including but not limited to section 13) is correc

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Howard Chu wrote: > > Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote: > >> > > I think what you're saying is that, assuming your interpretation of > > AGPL (including but not limited to section 13) is correct, a would-be > > LDAP impl

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Howard Chu >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:09 AM >>To: Richard Fontana >>Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Op

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:15 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > a) whether these restrictions of private activities should be considered > consistent with the OSD. > The OSD rules don't protect your private activities from the terms of Open Source licenses. > b) whether, separately from the OSI or o

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Richard Fontana >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:02 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definiti

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:51 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > Interestingly, I didn’t see AGPLv3 in any of the License Committee reports of > that era. And I couldn’t see, through the Wayback Machine, that AGPLv1 ever > got on the OSI list (although I haven’t done a comprehensive search of those > a

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

There are posted archives of the license-review mailing list going back to December 2007, which is when Russ Nelson set up the new system: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/ Looks like AGPLv3 was submitted in January of 2008, and there was a bit of discu

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote: >> >> Richard Fontana wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote: Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provi

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote: > > Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote: > >> > >> Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd > >> > >> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral > >> > >> No provision of the license may be

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Hi Henrik, Thanks for your comments. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:02 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > Data autonomy > > Wrt the discussion of not encumbering mere use / private use with any > obligations, I notice there's first of all a very explicit carve out for > "your private purposes". Also the first

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:33, Henrik Ingo <…> wrote: > What I think is unreasonable but still allowed by this language is to trap > operator users with the following submarine: I develop SOFTWARE and release > it under CAL. SOFTWARE is designed to store user input, but doesn't allow > to download

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Hi Lukas, Thanks for your comments.In general, the patent termination provision was crafted to deal with the actual types of patent attacks I most usually see around open source - a company, frequently an NPE, will assert a patent against a large number of users of a common open source application

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Since we're piling into the AGPL, I think it's instructive in the dangers of "upgrade clauses." Clause 13 of the GPLv3 allows for linking AGPL, GPL and (transitively) LGPL code. This allows AGPL developers to freeload on GPL code without contributing back to the commons. Brendan On Wed, Aug 14, 2

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote: >> >> Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd >> >> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral >> >> No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology >> or style of interface. >>

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that offends you? >> > > Obviously,

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

I would also like to see some documentation of the thinking that went into OSI's approval of the AGPL, to better understand the precedent that they were setting (or even if the precedent setting nature of this approval was understood). While it is obvious that there is a serious conflict in the ca

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote: > > Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd > > 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral > > No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or > style of interface. > > I note that the Affero GPL http

[License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. I note that the Affero GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html clause #13 13. Remote

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:30 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:15 PM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am left puzzled how the Affero clauses, which also target SaaS (or >> what RMS likes

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

I was just reading the new version wondering whether you won with "defeat by exhaustion". But seems like you were able to get some attention today. Below are my own thoughts, not a response to anyone else but you. Overall this is definitively an improvement. For example, the anti-DRM provision is

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Leaving aside the debate about user data, I think the CAL is an extremely well crafted license. But I do have some questions about the patent termination clause. The same paragraph was present in the first beta, but I just noticed it now. The CAL says (emphasis mine): If You initiate litigation *