Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] input requested: BY-SA/GPL compatibility - license scope

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jonathon <jonathon.blake AT>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] input requested: BY-SA/GPL compatibility - license scope
  • Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:23:08 +0000

On 23/02/15 12:15, Sarah Pearson wrote:

> This problem is largely academic, given how rarely BY-SA works are subject
> to patents that would be implicated by simply reproducing or adapting the
> content.

You underestimate the creativity of the USPTO, in deciding that
something that has been done for millennia, is not an invention that can
be patented.

>(In fact, CC has not yet been able to come up with a realistic use
> case, but we welcome concrete examples of those from our community that we
> may be overlooking.)

I no longer have the patent number, but at least one format for writing
interlinear text in a document has been patented. Or maybe it is layout
of the interlinear text that is patented. Or maybe it is something else,
that is related to the interlinear text, that is patented.

Anyway, Artscroll includes some information about the patent, in their
books that utilize said patent. I _think_ it was their Siddurs that did

I don't remember if it was that patent, or a different one I read, also
about interlinear texts, that was so vague, I decided that it was
utterly unenforceable, but the only safe course of action was to steer
as widely as possible around it, because of the expense in fighting
patents in general, and junk-patents, in specific.

USPTO Patent # 5,145,376 is not the patent in question. Whether or not
the use of Red/Blue in an BY-SA document violates that patent, is for an
ambulance chasers.

USPTO Patent # 4,715,623 is not the patent in question, but might be
applicable in a BY-SA work. (background intaglio)

USPTO Application # 20030145278, whilst pure junk, and should have
rejected on sight, might be relevant.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page