The rationale for the Cryptographic Autonomy License is explained here by Art Brock:
blog.holochain.org/understandi…

It's approved by OSI as an open source license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/CAL-1.

... although I remember there being some major controversy about during the vetting process:
theregister.com/2020/01/03/osi…

Not sure what the FSF folks make of it, it's not yet listed on the gnu.org licenses page.

Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data-sharing crypto license: 'We've gone the wrong way with licensing'

Distributed app platform's proposed agreement 'isn't freedom respecting,' he says

^{Thomas Claburn (The Register)}

I'm not yet sure what to make of the CAL 1.0. Bruce Perens talked about it alongside the Shared Source license (SSPL). But SSPL is clearly not a open source license by the OSI definition, whereas CAL is an edge case. The goal of SSPL advocates is to protect themselves from predatory competitors. Whereas CAL is about protecting users from predatory use of Holochain as a hosting infrastructure, which is more in the spirit of software freedom.

#SoftwareFreedom #CAL #SSPL

@alcinnz

Stretching my memory here, but wasn't SSPL a generic version of MongoDB's vanity license that was proposed to OSI? If so, it would have been discussed on the OSI mailing list.

@alcinnz

Here's the OSI statement on SSPL, describing it as #fauxpen:
opensource.org/node/1099

@alcinnz