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

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Feb 22 04:48:53 UTC 2012

Josh Berkus writes:
 > I agree with Henrik here.  If patent rights are specifically excluded,
 > we're basically promoting the idea of CC0 being a RAMBUS-style booby
 > trap.  And personally, I don't think that meets the OSD.

What's the alternative? Should we give people a paper umbrella,
promising that it will keep them dry when it rains?

Anybody who wants to set a booby trap will take steps to make sure
that a separate legal entity owns the patent rights (in spite of
Bruce's naive expectation that the CC0 licensor and patent holder will
be the same party).

We don't HAVE to construe an explicit lack of a patent license as
violating OSD#7. If there is no patent (and the OSD says nothing about
patents), then there is no need for a second agreement.

We *could* add a term to the OSD saying "No license complies with the
OSD if it is applied to patented software unless all known applicable
patents are disclosed."  THAT would be a solution with teeth. But as
I've said before, this is something that should be disussed outside
any one license's review.

--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog       

More information about the License-review mailing list