[uf-new] Legal implications of using Microformats (was: XFN - Professionals Network microformat)

[Manu Sporny]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <4630B0E9.3060504 at digitalbazaar.com>, Manu Sporny
> <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> writes
> 
>> most drafts have the intent
>>   of the authors in a section titled "Copyright":
>>   http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-proposal#Copyright
> 
> They do; but, as was raised here recently, that's a legally-meaningless
> statement of intent, not a license for free re-use.

Would the mandatory placement of all examples, formats, brainstorming,
proposals, and drafts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License go towards solving that problem?

* It would allow for the commercial and non-commercial use of the
  format.
* It would ensure that people could contribute without worrying about
  copyright assertions from other authors.

That coupled with a patent statement on the Microformat stating that
full disclosure has been performed by all authors and contributors to a
Microformat. Authors are not allowed to contribute to Microformats if
their organization holds any sort of patent covering their proposals.

The Microformats community could even put up a terms of use asserting
that anybody that is going to author a Microformat must agree to the
previous two requirements before contributing.

-- manu