Strange naming choice?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 15:01 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: Strange naming choice? by gfernandes
Parent article: Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

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.

to post comments

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?