[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Mon Feb 27 15:06:34 UTC 2012
Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:
> 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.
>From what I understand, that's precisely what they could not do, due to a
lack of records. Indeed, they might well have licensed the same patent
exclusively to more than one licensee, for all they knew. Hence the
desire for a license that at least would not make a bad situation worse.
It was during this discussion that we heard that the MIT license was not
intended to operate as a patent license. No surprise, given the above.
"He who sells what isn't his'n / Must buy it back or go to prison."
> The idea that the offices of tech transfer of large research
> universities might attempt to lay patent mines is, well, interesting.
"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by mere stupidity."
I feel epigrammatic this morning, apparently.
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?
More information about the License-review