On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use
with software.
Hi Thorsten,
Can you share a link to such a recommendation with a reasonable
explanation ?
The OSI license-review mailing-list discussed CC0 when it was submitted
for review. If you're interested in their opinion you can read that
thread:
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000092.html
The most important issue IIRC is that it specifically does NOT license
patents. Licenses suitable for software either explicitly give you a
patent license (for those patents which are owned by the copyright
holder(s)), or don't mention patents at all, in which case you may be
able to argue in court that a patent license was implied.
-- Kuno.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b328c577f5875cfb361733cc3d429...@frob.nl