Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

ah.

I think part of the confusion stemed from you using vocabulary
other than "patent" and "invention" when those were the concepts
you were talking about.

"mechanisms", "concepts", "methods", could mean anything,
but you seemed to be applying to mean a possibly patentable device.

That also puts new light on this:
> Copyright pertains only to the substantive document it is applied to -
> not the intellectaul property within.

By "the intellectual property within", I take that to mean some
patentable device described by the document.

Your sentence is also confusing because you seem to separate copyright from
intellectual property. "copyright only pertains to the document,
not the ip within". But copyright IS ip. rephrasing that sentence to

"copyright pertains tothe document, not the patentable devices within"

then it makes sense.

So...

with all that, to answer your original question, I think it depends
on what exactly you're trying to do.

If you are doing something with the way your XML is coded such that
the code could be patented, and you want to prevent patenting of the
code, or at least prevent someone from using your code in a patented
version of XML code, then you'd want something like GNU-GPL.

If your XML code is just a medium to communicate content which might
contain patentable inventions, then the XML is a simple copyright,
and the content belongs to whoever created it.

I can't recall if you created the content or not, but if you did,
then you might try GNU-FDL or GNU-GPL on the content or possibly
CC-SA (I think, someone correct me on that one), assuming you want
to prevent patents by other people on your content, and depending
on whether the content itself is code or plain language.

I'm not an XML jockey, so I don't know what a "XML schema" is,
so I might be missing something in the concept here. But that
would be a stab at an answer.

I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Greg

other specific bits below....

Steven Ericsson-Zenith said:
>
> Ok, so help me - I am more than happy to be educated.  If there is no
> distinction between a copyright document and the rights over the concepts 
> and
> methods as embodied in described mechanisms that the document contains then
> what
> is the distinction between a patent and a copyright document?  What is the
> distinction between Creative Commons and Open Source licenses?

open source is for code.
they may or may not require source code be included.

creative commons does other copyrightable works.
source code is not required on any source code be included.

some open source licenses deal strictly with copyright only.
Some deal with copyright and possible patent stuff.
GNU-GPL excludes its code from being distributed in a derivation
that has part of it patented.

Software is weird from a writing point of view because it
is the only writing that can also be patented.

A text description of an invention can NOT be patented.
the invention being described can be patented,
but there are many ways to describe the same invention.

So, if you're dealing with anything that is software
and you want to exclude patents, you'll probably want
a software license like GNU-GPL, which explicitely
deals with patents in its license.

Creative commons deals with non-software stuff,
so most of it cannot be patented, so patents
don't ahve to be dealt with in the license.

> I assume from what has been said that it all pertains to the notion of
> copyright
> but that does not appear to warrant a claim that there is no such thing as
> "intellectual property" in law.
>
> Certainly the author of a patent document holds copyright to it - but

actually, I think once a patent is actually approved, the document becomes
public domain. In exchange for patent protection, the inventor must reveal
completely how the invention works. otherwise it is a trade secret.

> a patent affords additional rights over the concepts and methods - which I 
> and
> others have historically referred to as "intellectual property."

OK, so I'm not sure what you mean by "concepts" and "methods" if
it isn't dealing with the functionality that may or may not be patentable.

> A Creative Commons license, I had thought, licenses rights pertaining to the
> document only and not the use of the concepts and methods contained therein.
> If I describe an invention in a document and you create an instance of the
> invention then my copyright alone does not allow me rights over your action 
> -
> as
> I understand it.  If it does, I want to know why I have spent so much money
> with patent attornies over the years.

So, do you want to prevent people from using patents to restrict your
XML? or do you want to release your XML but retain any patent rights?

If the first, then go with GNU-GPL.

If the second, then I think you might just want to
withold your XML until you get a patent. then license the copyright
however you want with a CC license.

> An Open Source license, again my understanding, licenses rights to the use 
> of
> the concepts and methods of a work.  I assume what you are saying is that 
> this
> work is also the subject of copyright - that I would certainly concede.
>
> How is my understanding flawed?  If the law does not view
> such concepts and methods in described mechanisms as that which can be the
> subject of license - why patent law? If Open Source licenses afford the same
> protection as Creative Commons then why one or the other?
>
> Perhaps I have missed a legal position that makes concepts and methods an
> extension of the notion of copyright.  Even so, this would not warrant the
> claim
> that there is no such concept as intellectual property. Simply asserting 
> that
> intellectual property has no existence is just not helpful here. I am a 
> layman
> in these matters - not a lawyer.
>
> My initial question, BTW, is simply about what type of license to apply to
> XML schemas and a further question relating to the copyright of XML instance
> documents - the latter seems tricky and I would like to be explicit about 
> the
> rights associated with this case.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
>
> Greg London wrote ..
>>
>> Steven Ericsson-Zenith said:
>> > J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote ..
>> >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>> >> > An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
>> >> > - not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to
>> >> > the substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul
>> >> > property within. Or am I mistaken ?
>> >>
>> >> I think you are mistaken, but more on the use of a concept that has
>> no
>> >> meaning.  "Intellectual property" is not a real subject, thus no
>> >> substantive questions can be asked about it and one cannot answer the
>> >> question you have asked except to point out that the question makes
>> no
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > That's very funny - since I have spent a good deal of my career 
>> > developing
>> > "Intellectual Property" for myself and others. In addition, I have spent
>> much
>> > of that time asking substantive questions about it.  Be that as it may
>> ...
>>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Here's your prior message:
>>
>> :: An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
>> -
>> :: not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to the
>> :: substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul property
>> :: within. Or am I mistaken ?
>>
>> Your choice of language suggests that (1) you are overcomplicating
>> the issue with concepts that have no legal meaning or (2) you don't
>> understand the law and are making stuff up or (3) you understand it
>> perfectly but communicate it poorly.
>>
>> JB's assessment is accurate in pointing to a problem on your part,
>> be it point 1, 2, or 3 above.
>>
>> Put simply, you're question cannot be answered because it cannot be parsed.
>> Whether it is a typo or a bad choice of verbage or that you don't 
>> understand
>> the concepts is impossible to know. But the short of it is your question,
>> as it stands, doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Getting indignant towards the people who donate their time for free here,
>> insisting that you know what you are talking about while demanding someone
>> answer your question will only guarantee that your question remain
>> unanswered.
>>
>> I suggest you try a fresh start, reword your question, and perhaps
>> someone can answer it for you.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


-- 
Hungry for a good read? Crave science fiction?
Get a taste of "Hunger Pangs" by Greg London.
http://www.greglondon.com/hunger/