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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Tue Feb 21 17:29:45 UTC 2012

He wasn't shouting.


Do you not remember AOL at all?

I agree with Thorsten's point.  I'm only pointing this out because it
appears you, Richard and Rick are really blowing this out of proportion
and creating more controversy than necessary.

You guys are also making assertions/speculating about CC0 that can be
addressed by reading the FAQ.


For example why the patent clause was inserted:

"What about other IP related rights, such as trademark and patent rights?

CC0 very clearly states that trademark and patent rights of the affirmer
are not affected ­ CC0¹s sole reach is copyright and related and
neighboring rights, including database rights.
Patents are fundamentally more challenging. One of our goals at Creative
Commons is to encourage use and dissemination of information in a way that
encourages others to build upon it, sometimes in surprising and unexpected
ways. We can accomplish that objective through a copyright-only solution,
without introducing the complexities associated with patent rights. We
also wanted to keep CC0 as simple as possible, consistent with its
original design goals. We concluded that any perceived benefits of
including a patent waiver were significantly outweighed by the downsides
of its inclusion."

The design goal is to replicate a copyright dedication to the public
domain.  If you can show me a dedication of software copyright into the
public domain automatically conveys trademark and patent rights then I
might be convinced you have a point.

If you want to argue that the OSD should require explicit patent grants
moving forward I might agree.  But it doesn't today and even if it did CC0
appears to me be a great candidate as one of those special use licenses
for folks that want to mimic the effects of a public domain dedication.

I would more likely take the approach that licenses that provide explicit
patent grants be moved into a recommended category than require it
absolutely.  That sidesteps the issue of many existing widely used
licenses no longer meeting OSD requirements.



On 2/20/12 8:03 PM, "Bruce Perens" <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

>On 02/20/2012 04:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> This.
>> Does.
>> Not.
>> Work.
>Shouting doesn't contribute to the discussion. Please stop.
>     Thanks
>     Bruce

More information about the License-review mailing list