<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: brief &#8220;CC-licensed specification&#8221; rant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/</link>
	<description>Ramblings on software, law, and the spaces in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:08:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friends</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-28881</link>
		<dc:creator>Friends</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-28881</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...] Villa: Brief CC-licensed specification rant. You keep using that license; I do not think it means what you think it means.Link&#160;Leave a [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dev.wp-plugins.org/wiki/Kramer"><img src="http://tieguy.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/kramer.php?kramer=gif-icon" class="technorati-balloon" alt="Kramer auto Pingback" style="border:0;" /></a>[...] Villa: Brief CC-licensed specification rant. You keep using that license; I do not think it means what you think it means.Link&nbsp;Leave a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Advogato - Recent Blog Entries</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-27958</link>
		<dc:creator>Advogato - Recent Blog Entries</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-27958</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...] only there were 30 hours in the day&#8230; just as no one has creatively addressed the need of the spec writersSyndicated 2008-09-17 19:14:24 from Luis Villa&#039;s [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dev.wp-plugins.org/wiki/Kramer"><img src="http://tieguy.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/kramer.php?kramer=gif-icon" class="technorati-balloon" alt="Kramer auto Pingback" style="border:0;" /></a>[...] only there were 30 hours in the day&#8230; just as no one has creatively addressed the need of the spec writersSyndicated 2008-09-17 19:14:24 from Luis Villa&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Villa&#8217;s Blog / what these guys need is&#8230; a trademark license!</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-27949</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Villa&#8217;s Blog / what these guys need is&#8230; a trademark license!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-27949</guid>
		<description>[...] only there were 30 hours in the day&#8230; just as no one has creatively addressed the need of the spec writers [&#8617;]   Post a comment &#8212; Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] only there were 30 hours in the day&#8230; just as no one has creatively addressed the need of the spec writers [&#8617;]   Post a comment &mdash; Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26837</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26837</guid>
		<description>Chris: sigh. The OSP situation frustrates me- you guys seem to be making a very honest effort there, and getting very little credit for it.

Honestly, my critique here is probably just legal nitpicking- I wouldn&#039;t worry about it too much, since so many others do it too- your intent is made clear.

Now, I&#039;ll get back to nagging people about doing something better...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris: sigh. The OSP situation frustrates me- you guys seem to be making a very honest effort there, and getting very little credit for it.</p>
<p>Honestly, my critique here is probably just legal nitpicking- I wouldn&#8217;t worry about it too much, since so many others do it too- your intent is made clear.</p>
<p>Now, I&#8217;ll get back to nagging people about doing something better&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What good is a CC licensed specification? - Creative Commons</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26761</link>
		<dc:creator>What good is a CC licensed specification? - Creative Commons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26761</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...] GNOME hacker and CC friend Luis Villa&#8217;s brief “CC-licensed specification” rant is correct: [I]mplementing a spec may require (among other things) licensing of “pending utility [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dev.wp-plugins.org/wiki/Kramer"><img src="http://tieguy.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/kramer.php?kramer=gif-icon" class="technorati-balloon" alt="Kramer auto Pingback" style="border:0;" /></a>[...] GNOME hacker and CC friend Luis Villa&#8217;s brief “CC-licensed specification” rant is correct: [I]mplementing a spec may require (among other things) licensing of “pending utility [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wilson</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26744</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26744</guid>
		<description>No, you&#039;re totally right; I didn&#039;t take it personally, but this is cheating a bit.

On MSOSP - actually, the process would be fairly simple internally, I think.  I am worried about the lack of trust there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, you&#8217;re totally right; I didn&#8217;t take it personally, but this is cheating a bit.</p>
<p>On MSOSP &#8211; actually, the process would be fairly simple internally, I think.  I am worried about the lack of trust there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26741</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26741</guid>
		<description>Chris: 

first, not at all taken as snide- it&#039;s a real, serious, hard question.

second, I apologize- I had intended to make it more clear that I don&#039;t blame you; for a long time CC has looked the other way when people have done this. So to the extent there is any blame here, I place it on CC; you tried to do the right thing and they failed you by not correcting the example others set for you.

third: Honestly, I think for you the best solution may be the MS Open Specification Promise- it is comprehensive and straightforward. Not everyone trusts it yet (as the link above mentioned), but there are no better standardized alternatives, and on the plus side, if it is &#039;fixed&#039;, your team gets those fixes for free. 

That said, I have no idea how hard that process is to use inside Microsoft, and I hope that CC/OSI/others can step up to provide a good alternative for lightweight situations like yours- I&#039;m beginning to poke around, because I think this situation highlights that it is a very real need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris: </p>
<p>first, not at all taken as snide- it&#8217;s a real, serious, hard question.</p>
<p>second, I apologize- I had intended to make it more clear that I don&#8217;t blame you; for a long time CC has looked the other way when people have done this. So to the extent there is any blame here, I place it on CC; you tried to do the right thing and they failed you by not correcting the example others set for you.</p>
<p>third: Honestly, I think for you the best solution may be the MS Open Specification Promise- it is comprehensive and straightforward. Not everyone trusts it yet (as the link above mentioned), but there are no better standardized alternatives, and on the plus side, if it is &#8216;fixed&#8217;, your team gets those fixes for free. </p>
<p>That said, I have no idea how hard that process is to use inside Microsoft, and I hope that CC/OSI/others can step up to provide a good alternative for lightweight situations like yours- I&#8217;m beginning to poke around, because I think this situation highlights that it is a very real need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wilson</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26739</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26739</guid>
		<description>(That&#039;s not meant to be snide; I&#039;m seriously asking.  After researching problem, doing design, getting buyoff up the management chain to &quot;give it away for free,&quot; how do we make that &quot;make it free&quot; as quick and easy as possible?  It&#039;s intended to be a discussion question, not a defense.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(That&#8217;s not meant to be snide; I&#8217;m seriously asking.  After researching problem, doing design, getting buyoff up the management chain to &#8220;give it away for free,&#8221; how do we make that &#8220;make it free&#8221; as quick and easy as possible?  It&#8217;s intended to be a discussion question, not a defense.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wilson</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26738</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26738</guid>
		<description>Yeah, so as an offending speaker from Microsoft:

What should we do here?  I agree with you on the problem statement (that CC is a copyright, not an IP licensing statement).  Let&#039;s all presume for a moment that our intent is to cause the end result that we&#039;ve stated:  for example, that we want the OpenServices Format to be free for anyone to implement, and to achieve that end we&#039;d like to state that the spec is placed in the public domain and we would RF-license any IP we own that might be infringed upon by an implementation of said spec.  How should we best make that happen, where &quot;best&quot; includes both legal and perception concerns?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, so as an offending speaker from Microsoft:</p>
<p>What should we do here?  I agree with you on the problem statement (that CC is a copyright, not an IP licensing statement).  Let&#8217;s all presume for a moment that our intent is to cause the end result that we&#8217;ve stated:  for example, that we want the OpenServices Format to be free for anyone to implement, and to achieve that end we&#8217;d like to state that the spec is placed in the public domain and we would RF-license any IP we own that might be infringed upon by an implementation of said spec.  How should we best make that happen, where &#8220;best&#8221; includes both legal and perception concerns?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-26731</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/03/27/brief-cc-licensed-specification-rant/#comment-26731</guid>
		<description>Duh :) That&#039;s true of any specification and any set of patents; the MS license I quoted from there doesn&#039;t say &#039;there are no patents&#039;; it says &#039;we will not assert any patents we have.&#039; Ditto trademarks, etc., etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Duh :) That&#8217;s true of any specification and any set of patents; the MS license I quoted from there doesn&#8217;t say &#8216;there are no patents&#8217;; it says &#8216;we will not assert any patents we have.&#8217; Ditto trademarks, etc., etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

