Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses for open standards documents

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Jon Noring <jon AT noring.name>, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses for open standards documents
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:28:43 -0600

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:41:56 -0700
Jon Noring <jon AT noring.name> wrote:

> The OpenReader Consortium is currently developing the
> OpenReader Publication format, an "open standards" digital
> publication standard (such as for ebooks.)
>
> We are interested in using a Creative Commons license for
> the specifications we publish.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Are there any organizations now publishing standards
> documents using
> CC licensing?


Most standards documents are not themselves under a "free
license", but use verbatim-copying-only or some such
language. The important thing from the free-culture
community is that you 1) charge nothing, 2) allow
redistribution, and 3) claim no patents (or disclaim
licensing fees on any you may claim) on the standard.

If you do those three things, most people would call that
a "free standard" or "free file format".

The whole point of a standard is to maintain an official
version of the spec to which others conform.

This usually isn't a problem, because if someone has a
legitimate need to change the standard, and they can't
convince you to make the changes (or you don't accept
patches to make the change), they can always make their
own standard, under a different name.

For example, you are forbidden to "alter" the Gnu General
Public License. But of course, there are a half-dozen
different free licenses under other names, which are
basically near-rewrites of the GPL.

It's kind of a 'brand dilution' issue.

> 2) Which CC license is recommended?

Something like Attribution - No Derivatives would seem
to fit the above. Of course, you could just use a
straight "Attribution" license and rely on good faith
or perhaps Trademark protection to keep control of your
standard.

(In a trademark strategy, you would simply trademark the
name for the standard, and require that it only be used
for *your* version of the standard. That way, people
are free to rewrite the standard, but they can't call
it "OpenReader Publication Format (TM)" without your
approval).

The fear in such a situation, is the so-called "embrace
and extend" tactic: Suppose some big, well-heeled software
company (who shall remain nameless) "likes" your standard
so much that they decide to add all sorts of bells and
whistles, then produce closed-source reader and editor
applications. That puts you in a very uncomfortable
position (either you play catch up, or you give up control
of the standard).

Of course, "I am not a lawyer".

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page