Van Lindberg

Last updated

Van Lindberg
Van Lindberg in 2016.jpg
Lindberg in 2016
Born (1976-06-25) June 25, 1976 (age 45)
Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.
EducationB.S. Computer Engineering/History (Dual Major)
Juris Doctor in Law
Alma mater Brigham Young University
OccupationAttorney, author, and software developer
EmployerTaylor English
TitlePartner

Van Lindberg (born June 25, 1976) is an American attorney, software developer, and author. He works as a partner at Taylor English, a national law firm, and as the CEO of OSPOCO, an open source program office-as-a-service business. [1] [2] Since 2012, Lindberg has been a director on the Board of the Python Software Foundation, [3] where he also currently serves as its general counsel. Prior to working at Taylor English, Lindberg was Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Rackspace, [4] [5] an attorney at the law firms of Dykema and Haynes and Boone, and as an engineer for the web hosting company Verio. Lindberg has been recognized by the American Bar Association Journal as "One of the Nation's 12 Techiest Attorneys." [6] [7]

Contents

Career

Lindberg is primarily known for his work on copyright and open source law. He is the author of the Cryptographic Autonomy License, [8] a network open source license approved by the Open Source Initiative in February 2020. He is also an editor of the Open Source Casebook, [9] and author of Intellectual Property and Open Source, [10] a developer-focused guide to intellectual property issues that has been used as a textbook for teaching the concepts of intellectual property and open source licensing. [11] In 2013, Lindberg testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the importance of open source models in copyright. [12]

Controversy

The Cryptographic Autonomy License, or CAL, is a network copyleft license, requiring redistributors to make source code available. The CAL also contains a requirement to “maintain user autonomy” with respect to user data processed using the software. [13] According to the license, anyone providing services using CAL-licensed software must also provide each recipient both a copy of the source code and the "User Data" pertaining to that recipient. The rationale, as argued by Lindberg, was that providing someone a copy of the source code alone, without also providing the user's data, was effectively prohibiting the user from self-hosting or migrating the software to a new location without loss of functionality.

The "User Data" provision of the CAL was controversial. Several long-time associates of the Open Source Initiative, most notably Bruce Perens, argued that requiring organizations to provide users their "user data" was a violation of tenet #6 of the Open Source Definition, prohibiting licenses from discriminating against fields of endeavor. After months of argument on the license-review list, Perens quit his association with OSI, saying that it was headed down the path of approviding licenses that were not "freedom-respecting." [14] [15] The OSI approved the CAL in February 2020, making it the second network copyleft license certified as "open source" by the board.

Patent Reform

Lindberg is also notable for his opposition to patent trolls. [16] Under Lindberg, Rackspace became known for its extremely aggressive stance against patent trolls [17] and its efforts to promote patent litigation reform, focusing on the Innovation Act in the U.S. House of Representatives and the PATENT Act, its companion in the U.S. Senate. [18] Lindberg has appeared with Senator John Cornyn [19] and in videos for the Internet Association [20] in support of the legislation.

Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. Rotatable Technologies LLC

In 2013-2014, Lindberg headed Rackspace's efforts against Rotatable Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity that was accusing companies of infringing patent U.S. 6,326,978 [21] for using screen-rotation capabilities in apps running on the iOS and Android mobile operating systems. [22] Rackspace rejected an immediate offer to settle the patent infringement case for $75,000 and instead instituted an inter partes review, leading to the patent being declared invalid. [23] At the time of the decision, Rotatable had pending suits against 31 other companies. [24]

Participation in Open Source Foundations

Lindberg has been in the leadership of various open source foundations. He has been an officer of the Python Software Foundation since 2007, serving as PyCon chair, general counsel, as well as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board. From 2013-2017, he was on the board of directors for the OpenStack Foundation [25] and in 2014, Lindberg was the first chair of the Docker Governance Advisory Board. [26]

Related Research Articles

Bruce Perens

Bruce Perens is an American computer programmer and advocate in the free software movement. He created The Open Source Definition and published the first formal announcement and manifesto of open source. He co-founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) with Eric S. Raymond. Today, he is a partner at OSS Capital.

Free software Software licensed to preserve user freedoms

Free software is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedoms to run the software, to study the software, to modify the software, and to share copies of the software. Software which meets these requirements is termed free software.

MIT License Permissive free software license

The MIT License Variations is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the late 1980s. As a permissive license, it puts only very limited restriction on reuse and has, therefore, high license compatibility. The Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons projects use the alternative name Expat License.

An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified and/or shared under defined terms and conditions. This allows end users and commercial companies to review and modify the source code, blueprint or design for their own customization, curiosity or troubleshooting needs. Open-source licensed software is mostly available free of charge, though this does not necessarily have to be the case.

Open Source Initiative Non-profit organization promoting open-source software

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is the steward of the Open Source Definition, the set of rules that define open source software. It is a California public benefit corporation, with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

Viral license is an alternative name for copyleft licenses, especially the GPL, that allows derivative works only when permissions are preserved in modified versions of the work. Copyleft licenses include several common open-source and free content licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license (CC-BY-SA).

Apache License Free software license developed by the ASF

The Apache License is a permissive free software license written by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). It allows users to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, to modify it, and to distribute modified versions of the software under the terms of the license, without concern for royalties. The ASF and its projects release their software products under the Apache License. The license is also used by many non-ASF projects.

Open-source software Software licensed to ensure source code usage rights

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust into the software.

Open-source hardware Hardware from the open-design movement

Open-source hardware (OSH) consists of physical artifacts of technology designed and offered by the open-design movement. Both free and open-source software (FOSS) and open-source hardware are created by this open-source culture movement and apply a like concept to a variety of components. It is sometimes, thus, referred to as FOSH. The term usually means that information about the hardware is easily discerned so that others can make it – coupling it closely to the maker movement. Hardware design, in addition to the software that drives the hardware, are all released under free/libre terms. The original sharer gains feedback and potentially improvements on the design from the FOSH community. There is now significant evidence that such sharing can drive a high return on investment for the scientific community.

Free and open-source software Software whose source code is available and which is permissively licensed

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software. This is in contrast to proprietary software, where the software is under restrictive copyright licensing and the source code is usually hidden from the users.

Multi-licensing is the practice of distributing software under two or more different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different software licenses or sets of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e.g. dual-licensed for software licensed under two different licenses.

Python Software Foundation License permissive free software license which is compatible with the GNU General Public License

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) is a BSD-style, permissive free software license which is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). Its primary use is for distribution of the Python project software. Unlike the GPL the Python license is not a copyleft license, and allows modified versions to be distributed without source code. The PSFL is listed as approved on both FSF's approved licenses list, and OSI's approved licenses list.

This is a comparison of free and open-source software licences. The comparison only covers software licences with a linked article for details, approved by at least one expert group at the FSF, the OSI, the Debian project or the Fedora project. For a list of licences not specifically intended for software, see List of free content licences.

Commercial advantage of copyleft works differs from traditional commercial advantage of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The economic focus tends to be on monetizing other scarcities, complimentary goods rather than the free content itself. One way to make money with copylefted works is to sell consultancy and support for users of a copylefted work. Generally, financial profit is expected to be much lower in a "copyleft" business than in a business using proprietary works. Another way is to use the copylefted work as a commodity tool or component to provide a service or product. Android phones, for example, are based on the Linux kernel. Firms with proprietary products can make money by exclusive sales, by single and transferable ownership, and litigation rights over the work.

License proliferation is the phenomenon of an abundance of already existing and the continued creation of new software licenses for software and software packages in the FOSS ecosystem. License proliferation affects the whole FOSS ecosystem negatively by the burden of increasingly complex license selection, license interaction, and license compatibility considerations.

License compatibility is a legal framework that allows for pieces of software with different software licenses to be distributed together. The need for such a framework arises because the different licenses can contain contradictory requirements, rendering it impossible to legally combine source code from separately-licensed software in order to create and publish a new program. Proprietary licenses are generally program-specific and incompatible; authors must negotiate to combine code. Copyleft licenses are deliberately incompatible with proprietary licenses, in order to prevent copyleft software from being re-licensed under a proprietary license, turning it into proprietary software. Many copyleft licenses explicitly allow relicensing under some other copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses are compatible with everything, including proprietary licenses; there is thus no guarantee that all derived works will remain under a permissive license.

Free-software license License allowing software modification and redistribution

A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights. Software using such a license is free software as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.

Copyleft Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Copyleft is the practice of granting the right to freely distribute and modify intellectual property with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works created from that property. Copyleft in the form of licenses can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, scientific discoveries and even certain patents.

GNU General Public License Series of free software licenses

The GNU General Public License is a series of widely used free software licenses that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, and modify the software. The licenses were originally written by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), for the GNU Project, and grant the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition. The GPL series are all copyleft licenses, which means that any derivative work must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms. This is in distinction to permissive software licenses, of which the BSD licenses and the MIT License are widely used, less restrictive examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use.

References

  1. ↑ "Van Lindberg - Intellectual Property Attorney - San Antonio, Texas: Taylor ENglish". www.taylorenglish.com. Retrieved May 12, 2021.
  2. ↑ "Open Source Vet Joins Taylor English IP Team In San Antonio". www.law360.com. Retrieved May 28, 2020.
  3. ↑ "History of PSF Officers & Directors". Python Software Foundation. June 10, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  4. ↑ "Rackspace Names Open Source Expert Van Lindberg VP of Intellectual Property". thewhir.com. February 19, 2013. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  5. ↑ "Rackspace Python IP master fights patent trolls". Computer Weekly. February 20, 2013. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  6. ↑ "Techiest Lawyers: Code Master". ABA Journal. April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  7. ↑ "ABA Journal Names Van Lindberg of Haynes and Boone One of the Nations 12 Techiest Attorneys". Preffs. April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  8. ↑ "Cryptographic Autonomy License version 1.0 (CAL-1.0)". OSI. Retrieved June 12, 2021.
  9. ↑ "Open Source Casebook" . Retrieved June 12, 2021.
  10. ↑ Lindberg, Van (July 25, 2008). Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code. O'Reilly and Associates. ISBN   978-0596517960.
  11. ↑ "The open source book you'll actually want to read". cnet. July 15, 2008. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  12. ↑ "Rackspace helps school Congress on copyright and open source". GigaOM. August 2, 2013. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  13. ↑ "Cryptographic Autonomy License Approved by OSI". Copyleft Currents. February 15, 2020. Retrieved February 18, 2020.
  14. ↑ "For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)". License-Review list. January 3, 2020. Retrieved June 12, 2021.
  15. ↑ "Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data-sharing crypto license: 'We've gone the wrong way with licensing'". The Register. January 3, 2020. Retrieved June 12, 2021.
  16. ↑ "Rackspace's patent warrior: why OpenStack is safe". DataCenter Dynamics. November 19, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  17. ↑ "Rackspace knocks out patent troll that claimed monopoly on rotating smartphone displays". GigaOM. September 22, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  18. ↑ "Here we go again: 5 key questions for patent reform in 2015". GigaOM. January 19, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  19. ↑ "Sen. Cornyn: We need to limit the business of 'frivolous' patent litigation". VentureBeat. October 14, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  20. ↑ "Video: It's Time to Stop Patent Trolls". Internet Association. August 26, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  21. ↑ "U.S. Pat. No. 6,326,978, Display method for selectively rotating windows on a computer display". United States Patent and Trademark Office. December 4, 2001. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  22. ↑ "Another Patent Troll Slain. You Are Now Free To Rotate Your Smartphone". Rackspace. September 22, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  23. ↑ "Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. Rotatable Technologies LLC: Final Written Decision and Denied Motion to Amend IPR2013-00248". National Law Review. September 29, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  24. ↑ "RPX: Search results for ""Rotatable Technologies LLC""". RPX Corp. September 2, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  25. ↑ "Board of Directors". OpenStack Foundation. November 10, 2013. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
  26. ↑ "Docker Governance Advisory Board". Docker Inc. November 4, 2014. Retrieved September 2, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.