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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses for open standards documents
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:25:30 -0500

On Saturday 21 January 2006 11:28 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

Re 3. Is it enought to claim no patents, or is there a way that they assert
that all parties certify that there are no known or pending patents and that
all parties assert that they will claim no patents now or in the future in
connection with 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).

Seems like BY-SA with the trademark angle might at least prevent the creation
of a new "standard" that couldn't be further modified and redistributed at
least.

When we talk standards like this, is there some easy way to indicate when we
are playing fast and loose with the concept and when we are being rigorous.
>
> Of course, "I am not a lawyer".
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page