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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Feb 27 14:49:47 UTC 2012

These needs are largely (completely?) met with ECL v 2.0, which is an
approved OSI license.  When a research university wishes to release code
to the community it needs only make sure that granting any patents held by
the actual contributors is not in conflict with any existing grants.

The idea that the offices of tech transfer of large research universities
might attempt to lay patent mines is, well, interesting.

ECL and academic friendly licenses in general (like say CC0) are effective
tools to reduce OTT and legal workload to do something that researchers
may want to do but institutions are generally apathetic about or in the
cases where tech transfer is generating much needed revenue, hostile to.

ObDis:  Speaking only as myself.

On 2/25/12 3:05 PM, "John Cowan" <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

>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

More information about the License-review mailing list