Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 7:34 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: Strange naming choice? by gfernandes
Parent article: Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Yes that’s exactly what it is and why it will work.

Remember that the people writing this license want the exact opposite of the people deploying sneaky underhanded technical ways to screw up the population.

So from their point of view, clearing the technical fog, and putting the ball squarely in legal land, is a good thing. *They* do not fear any scrutiny, nor judges or the general public wisenning up to what’s been going on.

to post comments

Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 13:52 UTC (Wed) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link] (4 responses)

I doubt it'll work. Look at Google. Successfully side stepped the limitations of the GPL, but **only** using the Linux kernel, and **rewriting** the entire stack on top of it!

The Google's and the Facebook's of this world have ample resources to completely sidestep this license, as they have demonstrated time and time again.

This license changes nothing.

Only strong government legislation, like that introduced recently by the EU, will work.

Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 15:01 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (3 responses)

This isn't aimed at Google of Facebook, they are already in the regulator visor, this is aimed at the miriad boutique shops that add antifeatures to squeeze as much value from users as possible, without the capability to rewrite the free software world.

And rewriting the world privately is not comfortable, even when you’re Google, or it would have never bothered to open source kubernetes.

Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 15:04 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (1 responses)

(and BTW “strong legislation” means moving the problem legal-side exactly like this license does)

Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 29, 2019 6:26 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

Not really. This license is a license, like any other. Under most jurisdictions it falls under either copyright or contact law.

Strong legislation is neither. It's **new** laws introduced specifically for data protection, like the GDPR.

Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 29, 2019 6:30 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

Are you serious?
Have you looked at the Apache family is licenses? Or the permissive licenses used by Facebook and Google?

Have you taken an inventory of the libraries published under **those** _permissive_ licenses?

And then compared them with the libraries published under this license you so strongly advocate?