discuss: Open Methodology License
Lawrence E. Rosen
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Mon Dec 2 18:25:39 UTC 2002
You are confusing aspects of copyright, patent and trade secret in
impossibly complex ways. And it may be helpful for you to get a clearer
understanding of prior art as it affects both patent and trade secret.
I suggest you discuss your business objectives with an attorney before
you jump into the difficult task of writing (or adopting) a license.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Herzog [mailto:pete at ideahamster.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 12:52 AM
> To: David Johnson
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: discuss: Open Methodology License
> I didn't consider that the methodology would be patentable
> but you're right, it is. To me it seemed obvious and not
> something worthy of a patent (like one-click shopping I
> suppose). However, I don't think we would survive prior art
> if we did patent and even if we did what we want is the exact
> opposite of a patent-- free use for everyone.
> What I need then is a license to prevent others from
> publishing the methodologies in whole or part and how they
> are distributed. We want people to use the "trade secret".
> We don't want it to be a secret, rather we want to encourage
> standardization. Perhaps a form of EULA is needed? Although
> that's how I saw the GPL is some regards-- the copyright
> takes away your rights and the GPL as EULA gives you most of
> them back with provisions. Which is why I'm seeking an open
> license format. In this regard I do hope that OSI sees this
> as an opportunity to blatantly promote prior art for
> methodologies which call attention to themselves as standards
> while protecting the copyright in the printed word.
> You say it's not for OSI but I hope you reconsider that the
> copyright portion of the license is what applies to
> methodologies and not that I am trying to use the license in
> place of a patent or trade secret.
> On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 05:27, David Johnson wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 December 2002 02:45 pm, Pete Herzog wrote:
> > > 2. The OML is similar to the GNU GPL with the following
> > > which pertain specifically to Methodologies, which are tools in
> > > their own right, intellectual property that is neither
> software nor
> > > documentation:
> > I'm not sure that a "methodology" is a copyrightable work.
> They should
> > be more
> > appropriately protected by trade secrets or patents.
> > USC 17, Sect. 102, lists literary, musical, dramatic, pictoral,
> > graphic, and
> > other works. But it does not list methodologies. It
> explicitely does not
> > cover "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
> operation, concept,
> > principle, or discovery".
> > Although there may be merit in an open license for methodologies,
> > especially
> > since there are several companies willing to play free and
> loose with
> > copyright laws, such a license is not in the scope of the OSI.
> > In my lay opinion...
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss