[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

[Pamela Chestek]

On 12/6/2019 3:30 AM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> But this led to the much more concerning discovery that the plan is to
> block interoperable Open Source software through the use of software
> patents.
>
> I can't remember any time in the history of Open Source when a license
> submitter, or anyone else at all, approached the Open Source
> initiative with a plan to block implementation of Open Source using
> software patents. Not to mention one which was well-received by the
> OSI and its license committee which worked to accommodate the plan. I
> hope you understand how distressing this is.
This license has a patent grant of generous scope and there is nothing
in the license that changes the existing state of open source licensing
in any way. If your meaning is that the patents will block
implementation of similar software that would be under a different open
source license, I agree that's the case. However, that is the case for
any open source licensed software covered by patents no matter what the
license is. While the scope of patent licenses in open source software
licenses is a matter of dispute, I have never heard anyone suggest that
the patent license would extend to code newly written from scratch.

Patents on open source-licensed software can also drive the adoption of
the open source version of the software. If one uses the open source
version of the software, they are fully licensed under the patents. If,
however, one choose to write a new version of the software from scratch
and put it under a proprietary license, then the proprietary licensor
runs the risk of a patent infringement suit. Having patents on open
source software therefore discourages the use of proprietary software
and motivates the use of the open source version of the software, a net
positive. As mentioned though, this is true of any open source software
that is covered by patents and there is nothing different about this
license.

> I am also concerned that the license committee is now holding Ex Parte
> proceedings, or at least Van reports such, and does not seem to have
> any sunshine proceess in which OSI members learn in detail what
> happened in those proceedings.
[Putting on OSI Board member hat] As previously mentioned on
License-Review, the license was discussed by the full Board at our
face-to-face meeting in November. The Board was not going to approve the
license in its prior form. I then spoke with Van about what changes he
could make that would remove the obstacles for the Board. I was clear,
and Van understood, that the changes would have to be vetted on
License-Review before the License-Committee would give a recommendation
to the Board. That is what is happening. There was nothing discussed
that isn't embodied in the document you are looking at now. The
alternative would have been to formally reject the license, which would
have delayed even longer a license that has been pending for a long
time. That does not seem efficient or productive to me.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com