Contractual Enforcement of CAL

Continuing the discussion from Cryptographic Autonomy License draft v1.0-Beta:

Was the idea to:

  1. Make sure licensors can enforce via infringement claims, and leave open the possibility of breach claims?
  2. Make sure licensors can enforce via infringement claims, and prevent them enforcing via breach claims?
  3. Make sure licensors have their choice of infringement claims, breach claims, or both?

#3. One goal of CAL was to have multiple independent methods of enforcement: Copyright, patent, and contract. Remedies may vary, but duties would remain the same.

In that case, I would be more explicit about requiring contract to receive licenses.

Compare Blue Oak [emphasis added]:

What about the old license v. contract debate? I tried to have it both ways with the CAL: No assent needed (license!) but if you use the permissions you signify assent (contract!).

I have the benefit of a lot of hindsight, and a lot of more recent case law. That debate simply never made any sense to me.

I see no legal issue requiring agreement linking license to contract and making both take-it-or-leave-it, any more than I see an issue linking license to specific terms in a notice or LICENSE file. As long as folks need a license to do what they want to do, the terms are the terms. It’s a matter of remedies and pleading from there.