Cryptographic Autonomy License

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Mon Jan 6 05:06:18 PST 2020


On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:29:00AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license
> 
> OSI / Perens in some sort of fight over this license.
> 
> 
> Internet commented:
> 
> "
> Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document,
> stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software
> in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary
> property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly
> break the "law" by copying your software without a license.
> 
> So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal
> normativity.
> 
> Then, nobody who backs imaginary property, can ever use your software.
> 
> And if they try anyway, you of course sue them, using their own
> weapons against them. And the only legal way out you offer them,
> is a contract where they give up all their imaginary property shemes
> for all eternity, and all their works go to the public domain
> forever. Retroactively too.
> 
> They can of course refuse to settle, and go to court. You'll be
> using Content Mafia math(TM), to calculate the damages they owe
> you. Bwahahahahaa!
> 
> (Payable in transferral of all their imaginary property to you,
> too, of course. rofl)
> "


Interesting food for thought.

A little too simplistic - such statements would need to "permit" not
only copying of software, but use of software, modification of the
software, and the issue of on-sharing/ on-copying.

Also, the issue of "selling" copies comes up too - if your "grant"
statement allows/ prohibits the next guy from charging anything for
additional copying - if so/if not, what about charging for
modifications/ enhancements, etc, etc.

Is this a solution seeking a problem that is already solved with
copyleft/ libre licenses?

I.e. what is the asserted "problem" with a license?
One can assume "inference of acknowledgement and therefore power/
influence given to those authorities which create the laws and legal
systems/ precedents, of "licenses".

But is "license" an inherently bad concept?

If we ditch all statute law, what sort of party party contracts would
the libertarians living in this new libertarian utopia, create?

Could such give rise to rigidity worse than today's status quo?

Possibly.

Although less likely now that we have a few decades of Stallmanism
under our belts.

The majority of programmers, and now even "businesses", understand
that there are notable benefits to a pool of libre code/ tech/
designs.

More food for more thoughts...


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list