Catharina is a lawyer by training and has been involved in intellectual property and public licensing models for over 15 years beginning with her work as director for Creative Commons International overseeing and stewarding the Creative Commons global licensing suite and managing the global license porting project. Catharina has worked closely with the World Economic Forum, where she served on the Global Agenda Council on the intellectual property system.
She has founded the Software Compliance Academy, a private training and consulting firm to support clients in their Open Source journey and currently also helps lead MBition’s (Mercedes-Benz subsidiary based in Berlin) technology strategy focussing on system level architectural questions for the next generation of infotainment systems.
In addition to her work with various clients, Catharina has helped to initiate the OpenChain project, the first international standard for Open Source license compliance (ISO/IEC 5230) to bring efficiency and trust into the Open Source supply chain. She has written and taught extensively on IT policy and standardization questions and especially the intersection between Open Source software and standards.
Her academic appointments included faculty positions at Keio University in Japan and Bucerius Law School in Germany, visiting positions at the University of Puerto Rico and Humboldt University in Berlin, and as faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University in the US. She is a member of the Council for the Legal Network at the Free Software Foundation Europe and a fellow at the Open Forum Europe.
Catharina received her PhD from the Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel with a scholarship from the Max Plack Institute for Intellectual Property in Munich, Germany.
Catharina has been elected to the OSI board in October 2021 and served as board chair since April 2022.
Why
Over the past two years, OSI has already achieved a great deal to increase visibility and improve operational stability – but we still have crucial challenges ahead of us: We have to keep on going with the Deep Dive AI project and make sure that the Open Source community has a voice in the heated debate about the future of technology. The license review process is currently “under review” itself and we also need to structure and refurbish the list of approved licenses. And above all, the political and economic situation makes life in the non-profit world difficult and challenging: OSI is a US based 503(c) charitable organization and relies on support from its members and unrestricted gifts from other generous donors, including industry sponsorships. We were lucky to get immediate support in the new membership structure and very proud to have built a strong support base with more than 600 members. Thanks to all of you who have supported OSI in its mission to advocate for the benefits of Open Source and to build bridges for a common understanding of Open Source.
Looking back, I have somewhat disappointed myself and underestimated the work and time commitment associated with my original goals. Especially the fact that we haven’t been been able to make enough progress in expanding OSI’s visibility and activities beyond the US and EU borders made me realise that I should ask for more time. Geographical diversity is an important prerequisite for the future of OSI. We need all possible different perspectives represented at OSI and especially in the Open Source Community. If re-elected I will focus on geographical diversity and prioritize my network in the Asia Pacific region. Geographical diversity is an important prerequisite for the future of OSI. We need all possible different perspectives represented at OSI and especially in the Open Source community.
Another important requirement for a sustainable future of the OSI and its community is engagement with the next generation of leaders, be it technical or non-technical. When I ran for the board in 2021, I promised to bring the core value of Open Source to the younger generations, to inspire them build an open future and support the idea and value behind the Open Source development model. And while engagement with the next generation naturally takes time, I realize that I could have spent more time working on this long-term goal.
To sum up, I am running again for the OSI Board of Directors because I would be delighted to continue and support OSI in:
- Growing as an organization with a special focus on resources and sustainability: Even with a full time Executive Director on board, we need to secure a strong budget, continue and grow as an organization with a special focus on resources and sustainability.
- Continuing visibility in industry channels and policy fora: Legislators and policy makers need support in understanding the Open Source ecosystem, its role in innovation and its value for an open future.
- Counterbalancing industry networks and trade associations: While we have been working closely with some of the prominent trade associations, we need to spend more time and effort working with small community based organizations and civil society.
- Leading in Open Source stewardship through definition, licensing guidance, and respect: With our revised license review and license approval approach, we will add more transparency and inclusion to our main task and mission.
- Mediating fundamental issues and debates about the future of Open Source: With AI dominating the discussion around the future of software development, we need to give the Open Source community a very strong voice in this debate.
What
If re-elected, I will continue to work with the team and board and focus on visibility and operational stability. I will work with our existing network of industry leaders, foundational, and academic partners and supporters to expand OSI’s impact and visibility. Adding a strong, consistent, and well-informed voice to the ongoing debate around Open Source and how it can be defined and defended is still one of the most critical challenges we have to face even if (or perhaps because) Open Source has become so natural and widespread across the different industries.
I will put a strong focus on our fundraising efforts. In addition to the much appreciated community and industry support, I would also like to reach out to foundations and apply for grants.
Finally, I will devote more time and effort to bringing the Open Source software development model to the next generation of leaders. I still believe that we need to get questions on ethics and Open Source software development into the curriculum of our Universities around the world so that the next generation of engineers and decision makers can benefit even more from the groundwork that the OSI has accomplished over the past years.
I can be reached at [email protected] and would be very happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your time and reading up to this point in my re-application. I look forward to my second term on the OSI board and to your continuous support.
3 thoughts on “Catharina Maracke”-
-
-
Questions for the candidates received from Luis Villa:
Your time: You have 24 hours in the day and could do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI? What do you expect your focus to be during those hours?
Licensing process: The organization has proposed improvements to the license-review process. What do you think of them?
Broader knowledge: What should OSI do about the tens of millions of people who regularly collaborate to build software online (often calling that activity, colloquially, open source) but don’t know what OSI is or what it does?
Regulation: New industry regulation in both the EU and US suggests government will be more involved in open source in the future. What role do you think OSI should play in these discussions? How would you, as a board member, impact that?
Solo maintainers: The median number of developers on open source projects is one, and regulation and industry standards are increasing their burden. How (if at all) should OSI address that? Is there tension between that and industry needs?
OSI initiative on AI: What did you think of the recent OSI initiative on AI? If you liked it, what topics would you suggest for similar treatment in the future? If you didn’t like it, what would you improve, or do instead?
Responsible licensing: There are now multiple initiatives around “responsible” or “ethical” licensing, particularly (but not limited to) around machine learning. What should OSI’s relationship to these movements and organizations be?
Your time: You have 24 hours in the day and could do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI? What do you expect your focus to be during those hours?
You are right – time is always an issue and we all want to make sure our time is spent wisely and primarily on subjects we are concerned about and interested in. And it should be fun, too! For me, Open Source is an important part of that – a subject that is very close to my heart and a community I enjoy engaging in. Working with OSI as an organisation offers a nice opportunity to combine personal interest with work in the public interest. And working as chair with the current board has been a very pleasant experience, which I would very much enjoy being able to continue doing it. I expect my focus to be on the topics highlighted above, in particular on geographical outreach and visibility but also on organisational stability and growth.
Licensing process: The organization has proposed improvements to the license-review process. What do you think of them?
The licensing committee has done an excellent job in reviewing, discussing and providing recommendations to examine and improve the license review process. The result is a tremendous step forward. Even if it does not address the question if and how there should be a process to decertify licenses, it brings clarity and consistency for future review and approval proceedings. Especially the opportunity to adopt a machine-readable tagging system will help identify and structure OSI approved licenses.
Reviewing the current license database and evaluating whether there should be a process for decertifying licenses, and what the process and standards would be, is still a highly relevant question for OSI. However, such an undertaking requires significant time and resources. The same applies to the general review and visible presentation of already approved licenses, which should be a first step to prepare for any kind of discussion about decertifying licenses. Let’s take one step at a time and finalise the current proposal before we look into the question of decluttering and tidying up the existing license database. We are still inviting comments and suggestions and would welcome yours!
Broader knowledge: What should OSI do about the tens of millions of people who regularly collaborate to build software online (often calling that activity, colloquially, open source) but don’t know what OSI is or what it does?
Lack of knowledge about OSI as an organisation, its mission, and relevance is an ongoing concern for everyone involved in OSI. When I joined the board in 2021 and took responsibility as chair of the board in April 2022, OSI had just made a major shift by hiring an Executive Director specifically tasked with improving visibility and outreach of OSI. Consequently, what happened in my first term was just the beginning of that effort and I expect it to continue to grow: OSI will continue and prioritise visibility and outreach by being present at relevant conferences and community events, engaging directly with smaller organisations, and also building a bigger network of industry partnerships. We are also planning to overhaul the Affiliate program as a way to further increase awareness and networking effects.
Regulation: New industry regulation in both the EU and US suggests government will be more involved in open source in the future. What role do you think OSI should play in these discussions? How would you, as a board member, impact that?
Yes, there is a lot going on! The European Commission is working on various proposals that are highly relevant for the Open Source ecosystem, including the Cyber Resilience Act or the Product Liability Directive – and the US is looking into these questions as well! We are following this with great concern and have just recently – among others – submitted a statement on the Cyber Resilience Act. We will continue to actively follow the development and engage in the discussions. However, it is also important to understand that OSI by nature and according to its bylaws is not positioned to participate or intervene in any political campaign. Our role is to provide information about the Open Source development model, its history, current practical relevance and especially implications for innovation in the software industry and beyond. We therefore educate and help legislatures and other parties involved understand the details and consequences of new regulatory efforts but we are not actively involved in any legislative effort.
Solo maintainers: The median number of developers on open source projects is one, and regulation and industry standards are increasing their burden. How (if at all) should OSI address that? Is there tension between that and industry needs?
OSI is an integrative organisation with more than 600 individual members. I think it is fair to say that we are built as an organization representing the Open Source community and especially its strong base of individual developers and maintainers. I wouldn’t say that there are tensions between individuals and the industry, but there is certainly work to do to ensure that the industry doesn’t get prioritised. Continuous engagement with the community and especially close rapport with individual developers and solo maintainers is therefore an important and ongoing part of OSI’s work.
OSI initiative on AI: What did you think of the recent OSI initiative on AI? If you liked it, what topics would you suggest for similar treatment in the future? If you didn’t like it, what would you improve, or do instead?
OSI has worked very hard to shift strategy and address key issues for its main stakeholders: Focussing on Artificial Intelligence and doing a series of events whereby we would engage in the discussion and learn from external partners and like-minded organizations on this particular topic was one of the results suggested by previous leadership at OSI. I personally agree that deep learning and “AI” is one of the most relevant topics for today’s society and consequently everyone, including the OSI as an organization, should be dealing with details and consequences. I also think that the format was a success – a very valuable resource of relevant voices and arguments. We should follow up on the discussion in the coming months and also consider the same or a similar formats (given that travel and face-to-face meetings are back on the agenda) for other socially relevant topics, e.g. security in the Open Source world or the rapid development of quantum computing in the context of software and networking infrastructure.
Responsible licensing: There are now multiple initiatives around “responsible” or “ethical” licensing, particularly (but not limited to) around machine learning. What should OSI’s relationship to these movements and organizations be?
OSI is the steward of the Open Source definition. Consequently, we have to look into all new initiatives targeting new concepts of license “categories” or labelling. The goal should be engage in the discussion and build bridges where relevant and auspicious. We should avoid, however, any attempt to dilute the Open Source definition which could harm the Open Source ecosystem.
Following up on Luis’ additional question on Twitter https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1635297494933598209: “I believe the org is working very well right now. So non-incumbent candidates: what will you do better than the incumbents?”
Thanks for all questions related to the elections! Very glad to see your continuing interest in OSI and very much appreciate your statement about the org working very well right now. I am not sure whether it is already time for a victory lap, though, as we still have many challenges ahead of us [see my WHY statement above]. But there is definitely a lot of good but invisible work going on behind the scenes and it makes me very happy to see this work being recognised. For me personally, the biggest lesson learned is that change takes time… especially on a voluntary, consensus driven environment.