On Sat, 03 May 2014 14:00:53 -0500 Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> writes: > >Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0 > >inconsistency problem in a different form. Consider the case of > >public domain source code created by a US government employee, > >having features covered by a patent held by the US government. > > The patent issue would apply just as much if it were MIT- or > BSD-licensed, though, and we'd call it "open source" then, right? Unless perhaps the situation -- a statute that says that US government works are in the copyright public domain, with no counterpart provision in the Patent Act -- is more akin to CC0, and depending on whether you'd call CC0-covered source code "open source". > http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 seems to > indicate that we'd need an explicit notice that the U.S. government > will not claim any copyright on the work in jurisdictions outside the > U.S. > > If the US government were to publish such notice on a given work -- > say, if standardized language for doing so were approved by the > OSI :-) -- then would there be any sense in which the work would not > be compliant with the OSD? E.g., would its open-sourceness be > materially different from an MIT-licensed work? When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7 as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depends on your view of how the OSD applies to patents. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
