[License-review] Request for consultation with CC on patent issue
mark at klomp.org
Mon Feb 20 08:56:25 UTC 2012
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 03:32 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Bruce Perens scripsit:
> > 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.
> However, quite a lot of other people believe that CC0 is just fine as
I happen to think CC0 as written is fine. But that is because I believe
clause 4 isn't meant as a way to clawback (implied patent) rights
granted through clause 2 or 3. Even if CC doesn't change the text itself
it would be good if they were to clarify the meaning of clause 4. If
they say that clause 4 is meant to nullify any rights granted through
other means then we might have a problem (since as others have pointed
out that seems to contradict OSD 7 because it implies additional
licenses are needed to get all rights earlier granted in the license).
So even though I believe the text as is is fine, I still like to hear
from CC. And I certainly wouldn't object to them making the text more
BTW. GPLv3 which does say something about patents explicitly has a nice
way of making things more clear IMHO:
Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
More information about the License-review