Like his attorney, I find his arguments unpersuasive. There must be some bound to the license, and I find the “required” stipulation reasonable.
I’d like to quibble with the interview’s assuming a patent “wall” that forces all users to stay under the spec’s thumb. A lot of my short attorney life was drafting client opinions to design around patents. The two GraphQL patents that I detailed above are very narrow and easy to design around. Perhaps it’d be an interesting and illuminating exercise to propose non-infringing GraphQL specs.
If one is not going to impliment the required parts of the spec, then they need to design it around the patents. Not unreasonable. And practically, it’s quite likely that by not implimenting the required parts you will, by necessity, not pratice a claimed element of the patents… Killing two birds and not even knowing it.:)