[License-review] Request for consultation with CC on patent issue

[Karl Fogel]

Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber at creativecommons.org> writes:
>Sorry that it's taking so long, we just want to respond properly.  We're
>paying close attention and are trying to draft a proper response.
>
>It's a busy time as CC 4.0 initial drafting work is happening at this
>very moment, and I think we didn't anticipate quite how complex this
>conversation was going to get. :)

Thank you.

I'd rather we take the time to get this right, than rush the the process
to either a positive or negative conclusion.  If CC has useful context
to add about 4(a), that'd be a big help.  We'll watch here for it.

I also didn't anticipate how complex this would be :-).  That's why we
have a committee, and thank goodness we do.

Best,
-K

>Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> writes:
>
>> Karl,
>>
>> Fontana and I appear to be agreed that CC should be asked to add
>> language to CC0: an explicit permission to make use of patent claims
>> necessary to use the software in the form that was dedicated or
>> licensed. This should apply to both public domain, and the fallback
>> license.
>>
>> Others on the list are sufficiently concerned with the problem, as
>> evidenced by the current discussion.
>>
>> At this point, I think you should ask CC to work on that. I don't see
>> why they'd be unwilling to add text clarifying the
>> issue. Consideration of CC0 could then continue without the problem.
>>
>> Granting approval before CC has at least been given an opportunity to
>> make this clearer would be a disservice to developers.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review