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

Chuck Swiger chuck at codefab.com
Tue Feb 21 18:48:44 UTC 2012

On Feb 21, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> 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.
> However, the CC0 is more than simply a public domain statement, 
> it includes an active reservation of patent rights.  

Yes, it does.  And clauses 2 (and 3, as needed) make it clear that the Affirmer has agreed to not make "associated claims and causes of action" to the work under the CC0 license against anyone.

CC0 satisfies OSD 7, because it grants (or attempts to grant, subject to local limitations about whether something actually can be placed into the "public domain") all of the rights possessed by the Affirmer to the work to everyone else.

> Either way, this choice will be active policy making by the OSI.  
> In my opinion, if the OSI decides to approve the CC0, it should 
> go further and retroactively accept the MXM license, update its 
> mission and the OSD to reflect a strict consideration to copyright 
> law, and be prepared for other permutations which include this 
> additional licensing variation.

The MXM folks explicitly intended distribution and/or commercial usage of MXM-licensed works to require a paid patent license; the CC folks explicitly do not intend commercial usage of a CC0 work to require a license.

The MXM license other flaws; it wouldn't suddenly become OSD-compliant regardless of patent considerations and just OSD 7, or what happens with CC0's approval.


More information about the License-review mailing list