Selecting a licensing application for an open standard / specification

Question

I started writing a file format specification for a domain specific data type. My goal is to improve the interaction between a large number of data providers and search algorithms. I want the result to be available for use, without patents and without distribution fees.

I am looking for advice on using a license, both for specification and for agreement with the developer, if I need it.

If this software, I know enough about the GPL, MIT, etc. licenses to make an informed decision. If it were a direct document, I would choose one of the Creative Commons licenses, most likely CC for attribution .

Looking around, I do not find any common application for a license or a lot of advice. I am inclined to what is used in RFC (for example, HTTP / 1.1 copyright ), but which says that "this document alone cannot (with exceptions), that I'm not used to developing code under the MIT and GPL licenses But these limitations are quite common in specifications.

Unlike most documents, but, like a code, a patent can affect its characteristics. Is it best practice these days to also state that the specification is patent-free and requires any contributors to identify any patent conflicts that they may know and / or freely license these patents for the purpose of implementing the specification?

Should I require some kind of sponsorship agreement?

Or should I just close it, select an RFC (or CC-By-Attribution) copyright infringement expression, and not worry about it?

Answer 1

“this document alone cannot be modified in any way” (with exceptions) [...] But these limitations are apparently quite common in the specifications.

Actually, this is largely a requirement. If someone could change it at their discretion, this would not be a big part of the specification: it will defeat the whole goal of "improving the interaction between a large number of data providers and search algorithms."

Dalke: ? ad hoc , , , - , , . , , , - DRM, , "CD".

[...], MIT GPL

, , : , "GPL" , , , GPL . ( " , ." ) GPL , , -, , .

Dalke: , GFDL " " , . , - , GPL, , , , BSD , , .

, - , / ?

. , , , . , , , , ? , IP/, (, , , ).

. , , , , FRAND ( RAND), , . , ? : 1 , , , , . , ( ) , .

Dalke: . . , , . . RAND, , : ", ! . !" , .

, promises , , . ( , .)

, W3C RAND , , Mozilla Apache, . , , , - , XML-.

, RFC ( CC-By-Attribution), ?

"" , . , , . , , , , - / /IP legalese.

Dalke: , .;)

, ; , . (SLFC) Institut für Rechtsfragen der Freien und Open Source Software (ifrOSS) .

, ifrOSS Open Web Foundation Agreement, Open Web Foundation , -.

Dalke: . , , . OWF, , , , , ; . , , . !