[Cryptech Core] info about commons conservancy

[Peter Stuge]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > and
> > it seems that a sufficiently large part of this core group fears
> > intellectual property problems with a "Radically Open BSD License."
> 
> But I don't see how you get to that last conclusion.

It seems to be the case.

Neither proposed organization focuses on managing funds, the Commons
Conservancy can explicitly not hold any funds. The remaining function
is intellectual property rights management, and part of the core group
seems to feel that Commons Conservancy provides some insurance.

I can understand fear of copyright profiteers and other intellectual
property problems - such as within Linux in past years - but those
problems can not arise when being out of compliance is impossible.

That's partly why CrypTech chose that "Radically Open BSD License" -
to preempt compliance problems.


> is there some remaining issue that we need to tackle before going
> ahead with the commons conservancy thing?

I maintain that CrypTech should not go ahead with that.

My question about the practical purpose of IPR management for a BSD
licensed project remains unanswered.

"It's common" may be appealing but is unconvincing, and benefits for
CrypTech seem minimal at best.

To me it makes no sense compared to a simple structure with which the
project is more flexible and more independent.


//Peter