[License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Lawrence Rosen]

Would CC0 plus Apache licenses resolve the patent problem?

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:37 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

FWIW, I have authored what I call a "plug-in" license intended to allow an add-in patent license to licenses like CC0 that lack one (or disclaim them).  It's a bit of a WIP, and isn't OSI approved (nor would it likely ever be as it's not an independent license).  I presented it to the CC folks at their annual gathering in Seoul in late 2015:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doESnl2d0M1clJ5bG8/view as well as other venues (FSF-E).
The proposal was mainly directed to the licensing of "open hardware" but it is adaptable so that it could provide a supplement patent grant for software, when such software does not come with, or disclaims, a patent license.
That may or may not be useful here, as you're getting somewhat complex in your licensing regime (CC0+Plug-In+OSI approved licensing).

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:17 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of 
> patent licenses (in Section 4.a).  That may mean that it doesn't 
> address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there 
> might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work 
> distributed by the USG).
> 
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been 
> some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both of these issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.

Gerv

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