Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:30 PM VanL wrote: > Thanks again for your comments. They have been helpful in making sure that > the scope of the CAL is clearly communicated. You're welcome. The goal given by your client is interesting. I hope you end up with a good new license. > On Wed, Mar 20, 201

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Hi Henrik, Thanks again for your comments. They have been helpful in making sure that the scope of the CAL is clearly communicated. On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:27 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > It's IMO regrettable that the goal of the CAL isn't to protect the entire > scope of GDPR personal data (in

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:34 PM John Cowan wrote: > > It doesn't happen to be true under the GDPR either. Recital (i.e. official > opinion) 62 (online at ) says that > the processor need not provide information that the data subject already > has. You alread

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:35 PM VanL wrote: > [Initially replied just to Henrik; resending to whole list. Thanks, > Henrik, for catching that!] > Two points. First, and as I hope will become clearer after this email, the > CAL and GDPR have different scopes, so it is appropriate to have a > diffe

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:47 AM VanL wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:47 PM Henrik Ingo > wrote: > >> >> > This is not at all the case. Say you received this software, and use it to >> keep a log of correspondence you've had with me. YOUR log is now MY >> personal data/user data, and under GDP

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Initially replied just to Henrik; resending to whole list. Thanks, Henrik, for catching that!] On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:47 PM Henrik Ingo wrote: > > - Protection of User Data >> The protection of User Data portion is a limitation on the grant to the >> licensee, not a grant of rights to a th

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

OK. I will try to generate a two-sentence clause that preserves the customer's specific fears in their selected wording while being broader and not a use restriction, and submit it for your approval. Thanks Bruce On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:15 AM VanL wrote: > This is best thought of as

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:36 PM VanL wrote: > Hi Henrik, > > Thanks for the commentary! > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:47 PM Henrik Ingo > wrote: > >> >> *About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:* >> >> It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third >> parties. T

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

This is best thought of as an extended anti-Tivoization clause. It concerns a particular type of attack on user freedom that can arise in the context of distributed systems that use cryptographic primitives as functional and addressing elements. It is related to, but broader than, the concept of ca

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM VanL wrote: > I agree with you on this one. However, the phrasing of this particular > element was important to my client. I did try to make sure that the > broader language (as you suggest) was also present - see 2.3(a) and (b). > Could you ask your client to di

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

See the few references I added in response to your first message. I believe the ultimate source n the US is the 1976 act + CONTU recommendations that were enacted into law, but I would have to double check. Note that one of the references is a WIPO publication, referring to international law. Than

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Hello Bruce, On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:17 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > *As reigning honcho of the Open Source Initiative, I have come to oppress > your license :-)* > Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! > > *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public > performance right f

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Hi Henrik, Thanks for the commentary! On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:47 PM Henrik Ingo wrote: > > *About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:* > > It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third > parties. This is also novel, isn't it? Potential OSD issues come to mind

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

> *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlightened.* The problem I'm having with this is that you tossed out "software is defined as a l

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

I noticed that Pipermail rendered my commentary on Van's license horribly. If anyone has trouble reading it, tell me and I'll attempt to resend in a different format. > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.op

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

*As reigning honcho of the Open Source Initiative, I have come to oppress your license :-)* *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlight

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Hi Van Thanks for sharing such an interesting and fresh proposal for our discussion. I choose this over Finnish Saturday Night Live any time! *About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:* It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third parties. This is also novel, i

[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

I have mentioned some time back that I was working on a new strong network copyleft license. The result is the Cryptographic Autonomy License, which I described at CopyleftConf. I wrote up an explainer laying out the legal rationales behind the CAL: https://www.processmechanics.com/2019/03/15/the