[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

Grahame Grieve grahame at healthintersections.com.au
Mon Jul 9 23:04:08 UTC 2012

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Grahame, I apologize for the incorrect links on the official OWF website. My
> version has the correct links, so I'm going to make sure it gets posted to
> the OWF website. In the meantime, here's the link to my Google Docs version
> that should contain the accurate links:  http://bit.ly/ORf662


> As to standards organizations that actually use these agreements, here is
> the most recent list that I’m aware of:
> http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/users-of-owf-agreements

so, I'm looking at this list. The basic notion is that you don't actually
provide "a license" for the standard, you provide a group of the OWFa
statements from "the contributers" (though, in my context, I have *no*
idea how we'd figure out how that was).

And you can only do this if you can figure out who the contributers are,
and get them to sign the agreement, else you can't accept their

> OWFa section 2.1:   Copyright Grant.  I grant to you a perpetual (for the
> duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
> royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting to
> me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
> perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the Specification to the full
> extent of my copyright interest in the Specification.

So, recently on this list, there was discussion that this requires the
statement to be repeated in all the derivations - a little piece of viral text
on it's own. no?


More information about the License-discuss mailing list