On Mar 07, 2017, at 07:15 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:


I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. 
If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a 
criteria and a license passes or fails based on the license text itself.


There already is criteria -- the problem, as you noted, is that there may be a 
third party with patent rights on a method used by the code, thus making any 
recipients of the code unable to exercise (some) assurances expressed in the 
OSD.



Is a library that implements, e.g., the GIF patent open source if I can't sell 
or export that code?  I can certainly see reasonable arguments both ways.



What sparked this discussion is a license that explicitly says "you don't have a 
patent grant from me or, effectively, anyone that has ever contributed to this 
code."  I don't know if it's a small subset as suggested as I have only ever 
(knowingly) encountered patented code from the original authors (CAD domain), but if one 
of them put a license on their code and said contact me for a patent license, that feels 
entirely in violation of the current OSD as written because of what it knowingly 
prohibits.



If Creative Commons feels strongly that CC0 should only be used with some sort 
of patent grant the easiest course is simply to remove the disclaimer of patent 
grant and call it CC0-software or something. Then it would have the same 
implicit grant as BSD and there is no issue with approval and no new composite 
license structure that will just confuse people even more.


This certainly sounds like an interesting approach that I can raise with them, 
but obviously lacks the explicit rigor favored by the Gov't lawyers.  
Otherwise, a different license like the Free Public License would be a 
competing option (at least in terms of non-proliferation), no?


The niche area seems to be specifically public-domain without explicitly 
disavowing patents and without knowingly permitting patentee contributors to 
create a situation.



Cheers!

Sean


_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Reply via email to