Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 25, 2019 11:23 UTC (Sun) by giggls (subscriber, #48434)
Parent article: Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Does this really need discussion?

"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 26, 2019 17:06 UTC (Mon) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (2 responses)

You're quoting the FSF/GNU Free Software Definition, which informs but is not the OSD.

Also, I don't see much daylight between the using the AGPL to close the "ASP loophole" and using a license to address a problem that wasn't really apparent when the "four freedoms" were published. It seems to be meant to ensure that your data is yours, and my data is mine. I don't have any problem with "limiting" someone else's freedom in their ability to hide my data from me.

I'm not sure this license goes far enough or how it'd be interpreted by courts, but I don't have a philosophical issue with it. It is unclear to me, for example, what happens if something under this license is used to process data about me that I did not give it. Is that my data? If they're gathering data about me but not providing me services, do I have any claim to the data?

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 26, 2019 17:19 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

The AGPL just says that you must provide source to additional people; it doesn't restrict running or modifying the program. It's extending what "user" means.

Similarly, the GPLv3's handling of DRM doesn't say "you may not implement DRM"; it just states for the purposes of the DMCA and similar laws that that DRM doesn't count as a "technological protection measure", meaning that breaking such systems doesn't break the law. It's a grant of additional permission to people using the program.

This license, on the other hand, places restrictions on what you can do with the program, and with how you can process data using the program.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 27, 2019 7:12 UTC (Tue) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

It's actually quite simple - capturing data about you, **without your awareness or consent** essentially breaks the warrant process, and therefore breaks the constitutional protections citizens **normally** expect, from government advising power.

If you don't have a problem with that, you clearly don't see this problem. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Note that the Third Party Doctrine basically means law enforcement agencies can gather a lot more information about you than they could before Google, Facebook et al existed.

This is not a GPL concern, in general, but it is something every citizen of a democratically elected government should be concerned about.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Sep 2, 2019 4:47 UTC (Mon) by raof (subscriber, #57409) [Link] (3 responses)

I agree that this license is not Free Software, by the current definition.

However, I don't think that's a problem. Indeed, I think that the current definition of Free Software is not a good one - or, rather, it's not a good definition for ensuring user freedom¹. It is a good definition if you want to financially benefit from the free work of other. Freedom 0 is incompatible with ensuring user freedom.

¹: It is a good definition if you want to financially benefit from exploiting the software commons; see also the perennial “open-source software sustainability” discussions.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Sep 4, 2019 7:19 UTC (Wed) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link] (2 responses)

Free software was never about *the users’ freedom* always about *the developers’ one*. Big difference which is too often overlooked.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Sep 4, 2019 10:21 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

You have that backwards.

Free Software is explicitly about the *users* but Open Source is about *developers*.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Sep 5, 2019 16:58 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Yup. And this licence is about the users.

Think of "parties to the action". This is a good licence because it doesn't try to give a 3rd-party rights. If I buy Office software and use it to create documents, the copyright holder is NOT a party to my creating documents. They shouldn't have any rights over said documents.

Aiui, this licence says "people *using* the software are parties to the action. They have rights". It may require the copyright holders to enforce the rights on behalf of the users, sadly, but the thing is the user has the right.

Cheers,
Wol