> The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL > is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. > Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute > software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using said > contribution. Putting everything under CC0 doesn't protect the USG or anyone > that uses USG-sponsored projects from being sued, which at the very least > would be embarrassing, and in the worst-case, damaging to Open Source in > general. I want to avoid that issue entirely by having a license that will > stand up in court that makes it clear that contributors ARE licensing all > patents and other necessary IP rights when they contribute.
Ah, thanks for your explanation. I now see the Rambus parallel: a patent-owning contributor asserting their patent against use of their contribution. I'm understanding that to be a concern about patent-owning non-governmental contributors, not about patents owned by the government. In that case, the code to which that patent license would relate would come from non-governmental contributors -- the government-specific copyright ownership concern would not seem relevant to that code. In any case, I'll add my voice to McCoy's: "why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it?" -- Scott _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
