Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
On 08/23/2013 03:40 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote: I know the Copyright Commons didn't want to publish an alternative, since it would dilute their message. However, perhaps someone could strike the words or patent, give it a fancy name, and submit it here? I've just seen this is happening: https://github.com/asaunders/public-domain-customized Custom Dedication: Open Source is a modified CC0 that addresses the patent rights issue. (there are more differences than just strike or patent) It's amazing and very valuable that authors with legal background are interested to draft open source licenses in the open, as difficult as it has to be for them. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 07:04 PM, Rick Moen wrote: The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it explicitly withheld patent rights [2]. Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they should consider just dropping the withholding-patent-rights language completely (for the reasons cited in OSI's FAQ). I don't think anyone on license-review said it was, to borrow the expression, a deal-breaker, just a bad idea to put into a licence generally. Is there any good reason why an individual shouldn't use a dedication and and fall-back license derived from the CC0 by removing the patent clause? I know the Copyright Commons didn't want to publish an alternative, since it would dilute their message. However, perhaps someone could strike the words or patent, give it a fancy name, and submit it here? Clark ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Hi, On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the event that its primary intent runs afoul of local law (as is a serious problem with such efforts), while Unlicense is a badly drafted crayon licence, apparently thrown together by software engineers imagining they can handwave away the worldwide copyright regime by grabbing a bit of wording from here, a bit from there, throwing the result out in public, and hoping for the best. My initial comments on Unlicense: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/26.html I never bothered getting to patent complications. CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain itself ? Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com wrote: CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain itself ? Not necessarily; many CC0 users are focused on data rather than anything patentable. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Prashant Shah wrote: CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain itself? The rationale, as I understand, is that a group in a University or other large organization would like to make their work publicly available, but don't wish to have the expense of clearing it with the intellectual property department. In other words, they explicitly wish to reserve patent rights and don't want the public domain dedication to interfere with their ability to collect licensing. The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software [1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of copyright? The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it explicitly withheld patent rights [2]. Clark [1] [1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 [2] [2]http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero References 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 2. http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com): CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain itself ? In general, the focus of Creative Commons licences has been on maximising the possibilities for reuse and remix of cultural works. (Small reminder: CC's focus isn't software.) Towards that end, they publish a spectrum of license that within software we would classify as variously free / open source or proprietary, the apparent aim being to coax copyright stakeholders with differing (but sometimes large) degrees of insistence on ongoing control to nonetheless permit reuse / remix of their cultural works by others under one CC licensing option or another. As an additional reminder, copyright encumbers the particular expression of a creative work in one of the statutory covered categories. Patent, by contrast, encumbers a useful practical technique or process. It's by no means obvious that exercising rights normally reserved to the owner of a copyrighted creative expression necessarily infringes any patent. (Looks to me like those concerns are largely orthogonal.) Anyway, back to CC: I would speculate that the wording of the CC0 dedication + fallback permissive licence is the way it is -- including its avoidance of the patent morass -- specifically because of CC's guiding star of trying to coax copyright stakeholders of all types into permitting reuse / remix. Purporting to require them to also throw in a bunch of patent rights would, from that perspective, reduce the appeal of their various licence options. However, the fact that I'm speculating highlights one of your larger problems in all of this: You are not (as far as I know) addressing your concerns to Creative Commons. I don't speak for them any more than I do for OSI, but, FWIW, from my acquaintance with the CC folks and observing their high level of competence, I would tend to think that if you ever conclude that their licences fail to advance their goals, the first qwestion you should ask yourself is whether you understand their goals. That aside, I notice that _many_ people trying to promote 'public domain dedications' (present company excluded) just are seeking magic tools to make legal impediments go away, and aren't interested in complex realities like, e.g., Unlicense being badly written and legally defective. For those folks, I tend to just quote Miracle Max: 'Have fun storming the castle.' -- Cheers,Two women walk into a bar and discuss the Bechdel Test. Rick Moen -- Matt Watson r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com): The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software [1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of copyright? I might point out, too, in passing, that requiring the licensor to grant a royalty-free licence to any applicable patents has limited utility in even the rosiest scenario, as licensees could turn right around and be hit up for royalties on someone _eles's_ patents over techniques the code uses. It's arguable that patent peace clauses _can_ be good strategy, but I'd urge being careful to consider whether the specific clause one has in mind is going to achieve one's aims without excessive collateral damage. The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it explicitly withheld patent rights [2]. Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they should consider just dropping the withholding-patent-rights language completely (for the reasons cited in OSI's FAQ). I don't think anyone on license-review said it was, to borrow the expression, a deal-breaker, just a bad idea to put into a licence generally. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Clark C. Evans scripsit: The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software [1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of copyright? Indeed, there are many Free Software licenses without patent clauses, notably the GPLv2 (which only says that if there's a patent you know about that would be infringed and is not freely licensed to all, you can't distribute the code). -- Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettesJohn Cowan co...@ccil.org of a creatific thinkerizer. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Peter da Silva ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Hi, http://unlicense.org/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ? CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified. CC0 : *4. Limitations and Disclaimers.* 1. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Prashant Shah scripsit: CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified. The presence of the patent verbs use and sell and the use of uncumbered suggest that there is a patent license, but no more than suggest. I suspect nobody who actually has patents (which unlike copyrights, take time and money to get) will use it anyway. -- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMUco...@ccil.org BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com): Hi, 'Lo. http://unlicense.org/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ? CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the event that its primary intent runs afoul of local law (as is a serious problem with such efforts), while Unlicense is a badly drafted crayon licence, apparently thrown together by software engineers imagining they can handwave away the worldwide copyright regime by grabbing a bit of wording from here, a bit from there, throwing the result out in public, and hoping for the best. My initial comments on Unlicense: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/26.html I never bothered getting to patent complications. -- Cheers, My daughter is invited to a samba party. I was Rick Moenexcited, thought it was a sysadmin party. r...@linuxmafia.com Turns out it's something to do with dancing :-/ McQ! (4x80) -- Martin Bateman ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
