Reply to post: Re: Am I missing something ?

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

Warm Braw Silver badge

Re: Am I missing something ?

I was puzzled by this too. However, I think it may be related to the following, if I have understood it correctly (which should not be taken as given)...

The issue at hand seems to be a sort of peer-to-peer cloud: the intention is that you put some data into it and it gets processed somewhere, perhaps in multiple different places. Other nodes may also get to validate the processing or data to check that participants aren't running rogue software.

This means that your data may end up in the hands of people you don't know and who you haven't explicitly authorised to receive it. The licence appears to be intended to ensure that, if you run the software, you have a GDPR-like obligation to anyone whose data you have processed.

It seems to me that the biggest problem here isn't the licence, but the entire concept. Clearly, there's a potential benefit in theory if you can have a sort of Bittorrent for lambda functions which might mean you're not at the mercy of your IoT provider's server infrastructure. Legally and practically, it seems like a complete nightmare - how do you even know who might have seen your data, never mind actually use the software licence (issued by a third party) to enforce your personal rights. And who would want to participate in such a network if they were potentially having to work out whose data they might have and whether any request to access it came from its legitimate owner.

IAN, fortunately, AL, but this doesn't sound to me like the kind of problem a software licence can usefully resolve.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020