[License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Wed Mar 7 17:57:08 UTC 2012
Let's try to restate the problem so we can get back on track:
There are FOSS-friendly software licensors who -- for a variety of reasons
-- do not include an express patent grant in their software licenses (e.g.,
BSD). In some cases, they expressly *exclude* a patent grant (e.g., CC0).
Even those who do grant patent licenses often restrict the license to
specific claims (e.g., claims embodied in the original work) or for specific
purposes (e.g., necessary claims to implement a standard). And as a final
insult to innocent developers and users, in many cases the licensor simply
doesn't own or control all necessary patent claims, leaving licensees
without much assurance anyway. Most FOSS licenses are "AS-IS" and without
Meanwhile, there are software distributors who are able and willing to
provide some level of IP infringement indemnification for a fee. Presumably
these distributors have either deep pockets or a keener understanding of the
risks involved. In any event, the pricing of risk is altogether typical in
the software business and best left off of OSI discussion lists.
None of this is counter to the OSD.
I suggest that we get back to approving licenses that do just that, and
leave the patent policy issues to other lists, or at least other threads.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: license-review-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-review-
> bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Jim Jagielski
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:51 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents,
> [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
> I have a hard time following all this, based on the mix of factual
> data in combo with the ad-hominum attacks floating around...
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review