[License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
Thu Aug 15 11:21:33 UTC 2019
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:55 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
> Thanks for your comments.In general, the patent termination provision was
> crafted to deal with the actual types of patent attacks I most usually see
> around open source - a company, frequently an NPE, will assert a patent
> against a large number of users of a common open source application. I
> wanted to discourage any patent attacks on CAL-licensed software against
> Looking at the Apache license, for example, the primary entities protected
> are the *contributors.* The CAL protects both the contributors *and* the
> Recipients. So if a patent aggressor initiates litigation against a
> downstream user, a patent-holding contributor can act on behalf of the user
> (because the license is terminated as to the patent aggressor).
Btw, I very much appreciate this. Software patents is one area where I
think copyleft licenses could use much stronger language than what has been
done so far. It seems to me during GPLv3 drafting the big FOSS friendly
corporations successfully lobbied for fairly soft language here. (Same
corporation(s) that are behind the Apache License I guess.)
But in a way it's understandable that the most popular license needed to
consider a multitude of users, where CAL as a new license can go further.
Thanks for doing that!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss