Expressing the Key Thrust of CAL

@vanl, Open Service Compact v1.0.0-beta.1 embodies most of my meta-level feedback on CAL. As you’ll see, it’s based on Blue Oak, but also explicitly moves its key, CAL-like rules—copyleft and data sovereignty—to a separate document that can feature them more prominently.

I get how separating the two docs may emphasize certain points a little bit differently. I can also see some benefit to modularity. But my high-level response is that two documents end up being more unwieldy than one.

Disagree? Why?

1 Like

@VanL if multiple files are an issue, licensors could easily concatenate. cat > It’s ASCII turtles, all the way down.

I’d definitely put the policy first. The novelty, and controversy, involved here is all in the copyleft and service-data obligations. Rather than bury that lede, I’d do what you can to bring it front and center. The modularity that you mentioned facilitates a more focused emphasis.