4 ms·

Its using Concrete from Zama. I didn't like their license because it's BSD-3-Clause-Clear but then they state: "Zama’s libraries are free to use under the BSD

by hoppp 2y ago

Its using Concrete from Zama. I didn't like their license because it's BSD-3-Clause-Clear but then they state: "Zama’s libraries are free to use under the BSD 3-Clause Clear license only for development, research, prototyping, and experimentation purposes. However, for any commercial use of Zama's open source code, companies must purchase Zama’s commercial patent license" So Its not free, you need to pay for patent license, and they don't disclose how much. I recommend OpenFHE as an alternative Free open source solution. I know its C++ and not Rust, but no patent license and it can do the same thing the blog post wants to do, it even has more features like proxy-reencryption that I think Concrete can't do.

nine_k 2y ago
How is this "BSD-licensed but only for research" not self-contradictory? It's like saying: "FREE* candy! (Free to look at, eating is $6.95 / pound)"
- gus_massa 2y ago
  They use the patent loophole. From https://www.zama.ai/post/open-source https://www.zama.ai/post/open-source > If a company open sources their code under BSD3-clear, they can sell additional licenses to use the patents included in the open source code. In this case, it still isn’t the software that is sold, but rather the usage rights of the patented intellectual property it contains. Every day I like the Apache licence more.
- nabla9 2y ago
  BSD+"additional clause" is not BSD. Just like 3+1 is not 3.
  - eli 2y ago
    Wouldn't the patent still be a problem with the standard BSD license? BSD would grant you license to redistribute the software but not necessarily the patent rights to use it.
    - kragen 2y ago
      The BSD license permits redistribution and use, with or without modification. This permission is conditional on a copyright-related thing (among other things), but there's nothing suggesting that the license is limited to copyright-related rights. If someone grants you a BSD license to their software and then sues you for patent infringement for redistributing or using it, it seems like they'd be likely to lose the lawsuit because they granted you a license to do what you're doing. On the other hand, there's nothing explicitly stating that the permission is intended to extend to practicing the patents embodied in the software. That's just an inference any reasonable person would draw from the language of the license. It may be better to state it explicitly, as the Apache license does. But it may be worse, because longer licenses contain more to argue over, and once you start listing the particular causes of action you're promising not to sue for, you may miss some. Suppose your program is for chemistry and includes a list of solubility parameters for different compounds. If someone copies that, that's a potential cause of action under national laws implementing the sui generis database rights in the EU Database Protection directive: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vitgbghz2hzv https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1... which postdates the authorship of the BSD license and isn't mentioned in the Apache License 2.0 either. Plausibly the explicit listing of copyright rights and patent rights in the license will incline courts to decide that no license to database rights was intended. Some future legislation will presumably create new intellectual property restrictions we currently can't imagine, even if it also removes some of the ones we currently suffer from. (A separate issue is that the patent holder may not be the person who granted the license or indeed have contributed in any way to the creation of the BSD-licensed software, which is just as much of a problem with the Apache license.) Issues like these require thoughtful deliberation, and unfortunately the Reddit format adopted by HN makes that impossible—in fact, the editing and replying deadlines added for HN make it a medium even less amenable to such discussions.
      - eli 2y ago
        Good point. I remembered the 3 clauses correctly but forgot the first sentence mentions "use" along with redistribution. IANAL but it seems common sense that "use is permitted" implies some sort of patent license. Seems tricky though -- do the people I redistribute my modified version to also get a license? Could I avoid needing a patent license for my unrelated project if I embed Concrete? Concrete's lawyers must believe that BSD doesn't grant patent rights. The Concrete license.txt is straight BSD, but the Readme says it only applies in certain situations. So is it BSD licensed or not? If that statement about patents in the Readme is load-bearing then what's stopping me from forking the project and removing it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
commandersaki 2y ago
Source? I'm unconvinced. They have been posting stuff about implementing HE primitives in Swift as of last year.
- j2kun 2y ago
  Zama has already hit competitors with (French) patent charges. Apple's HE implementation is in Swift and uses BFV, which is very different HE from anything Zama does and doesn't use their source.
  - commandersaki 2y ago
    Yeah that was what I thought. I've seen their engineers also push for an employment drive for more engineers in the HE space, so I assume they're going to expand its use where applicable, building from the ground up.
Ar-Curunir 2y ago
Concrete from Zama is a completely different algorithm to the one used in this product; the former uses the CKKS algorithm, while the latter is the BFV algorithm.
- hoppp 2y ago
  OpenFHE supports all major FHE schemes, including the BGV, BFV, CKKS, DM (FHEW), and CGGI (TFHE) schemes. Copied from openfhe.org Or maybe thats not what you meant...

by hoppp 2y ago

nine_k 2y ago

How is this "BSD-licensed but only for research" not self-contradictory? It's like saying: "FREE* candy! (Free to look at, eating is $6.95 / pound)"

gus_massa 2y ago
They use the patent loophole. From https://www.zama.ai/post/open-source https://www.zama.ai/post/open-source > If a company open sources their code under BSD3-clear, they can sell additional licenses to use the patents included in the open source code. In this case, it still isn’t the software that is sold, but rather the usage rights of the patented intellectual property it contains. Every day I like the Apache licence more.
nabla9 2y ago
BSD+"additional clause" is not BSD. Just like 3+1 is not 3.
- eli 2y ago
  Wouldn't the patent still be a problem with the standard BSD license? BSD would grant you license to redistribute the software but not necessarily the patent rights to use it.
  - kragen 2y ago
    The BSD license permits redistribution and use, with or without modification. This permission is conditional on a copyright-related thing (among other things), but there's nothing suggesting that the license is limited to copyright-related rights. If someone grants you a BSD license to their software and then sues you for patent infringement for redistributing or using it, it seems like they'd be likely to lose the lawsuit because they granted you a license to do what you're doing. On the other hand, there's nothing explicitly stating that the permission is intended to extend to practicing the patents embodied in the software. That's just an inference any reasonable person would draw from the language of the license. It may be better to state it explicitly, as the Apache license does. But it may be worse, because longer licenses contain more to argue over, and once you start listing the particular causes of action you're promising not to sue for, you may miss some. Suppose your program is for chemistry and includes a list of solubility parameters for different compounds. If someone copies that, that's a potential cause of action under national laws implementing the sui generis database rights in the EU Database Protection directive: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vitgbghz2hzv https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1... which postdates the authorship of the BSD license and isn't mentioned in the Apache License 2.0 either. Plausibly the explicit listing of copyright rights and patent rights in the license will incline courts to decide that no license to database rights was intended. Some future legislation will presumably create new intellectual property restrictions we currently can't imagine, even if it also removes some of the ones we currently suffer from. (A separate issue is that the patent holder may not be the person who granted the license or indeed have contributed in any way to the creation of the BSD-licensed software, which is just as much of a problem with the Apache license.) Issues like these require thoughtful deliberation, and unfortunately the Reddit format adopted by HN makes that impossible—in fact, the editing and replying deadlines added for HN make it a medium even less amenable to such discussions.
    - eli 2y ago
      Good point. I remembered the 3 clauses correctly but forgot the first sentence mentions "use" along with redistribution. IANAL but it seems common sense that "use is permitted" implies some sort of patent license. Seems tricky though -- do the people I redistribute my modified version to also get a license? Could I avoid needing a patent license for my unrelated project if I embed Concrete? Concrete's lawyers must believe that BSD doesn't grant patent rights. The Concrete license.txt is straight BSD, but the Readme says it only applies in certain situations. So is it BSD licensed or not? If that statement about patents in the Readme is load-bearing then what's stopping me from forking the project and removing it?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

commandersaki 2y ago

Source? I'm unconvinced. They have been posting stuff about implementing HE primitives in Swift as of last year.

j2kun 2y ago
Zama has already hit competitors with (French) patent charges. Apple's HE implementation is in Swift and uses BFV, which is very different HE from anything Zama does and doesn't use their source.
- commandersaki 2y ago
  Yeah that was what I thought. I've seen their engineers also push for an employment drive for more engineers in the HE space, so I assume they're going to expand its use where applicable, building from the ground up.

Ar-Curunir 2y ago

Concrete from Zama is a completely different algorithm to the one used in this product; the former uses the CKKS algorithm, while the latter is the BFV algorithm.

hoppp 2y ago
OpenFHE supports all major FHE schemes, including the BGV, BFV, CKKS, DM (FHEW), and CGGI (TFHE) schemes. Copied from openfhe.org Or maybe thats not what you meant...