[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

[Lawrence Rosen]

John Cowan wrote:
> My recollection is a bit different.  MIT wanted to exclude patent
> rights because (a) they did not know what patents they had, and 
> (b) they did not know what exclusive patent licenses they had 
> already granted and to whom.  Consequently, they were afraid of 
> issuing code with a public non-exclusive grant that would 
> conflict with existing exclusive grants (if any) of their 
> patents (if any).

John has a better recollection of MIT's arguments than I do; my own
recollection is probably colored by my own arguments at the time. :-) 

I was against approving the proposed new MIT license at the time for reasons
similar to what has been stated here about CC0, yet I do recall also
thinking that -- in their environment -- their argument was valid.
Universities and scientific research in the U.S. work that way.

At the time I was advising a professor at a Canadian university where the
invention model is quite different. At that university, each professor is
generally free to convey his or her own inventions in software or otherwise
as long as the university gets a percentage of whatever profit the professor
realizes. At MIT, I believe, the university owns the patents and the
professor gets a cut. 

That difference (along with the Bayh-Dole rule, as Bruce points out) changes
the institutional and open source dynamic profoundly. I'm quite sure that
this is a bigger issue than OSI is able to deal with despite our heated
opinions about patents. For that reason, among others, I'd rather approve
CC0 with all its uncertainties than wait for the world to change.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: license-review-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-review-
> bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:06 PM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
> 
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> 
> > Several years ago MIT tried to gain approval of a license that
> > explicitly withheld patent rights for that exact reason. Their
> (valid)
> > argument was that the academics who contribute software usually don't
> > own the patents that their universities acquire for their inventions.
> 
> My recollection is a bit different.  MIT wanted to exclude patent
> rights
> because (a) they did not know what patents they had, and (b) they did
> not know what exclusive patent licenses they had already granted and
> to whom.  Consequently, they were afraid of issuing code with a public
> non-exclusive grant that would conflict with existing exclusive grants
> (if any) of their patents (if any).
> 
> > I vaguely recall that MIT withdrew it from consideration after
> several
> > of us pointed out that it seemed to be a bald-faced attempt to
> > introduce software into the stream of commerce without even
> disclosing
> > that patents applied.
> 
> Or in the alternative a spectacular exhibition of public baboonery.
> 
> --
> John Cowan                                cowan at ccil.org
> At times of peril or dubitation,          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Perform swift circular ambulation,
> With loud and high-pitched ululation.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review