Yeah i now think "associated with" are too ambigous Originally i only plan to use that license to release my own code but when i open for contributors i will have to take their rights into account too...
Do you have any advice for that too? Reply to: br...@perens.com wrote: ### BEGIN ### I think the proper language would be to grant rights to parents that are "necessarily practiced in the work as issued by the grantor". Because of course anyone can modify the work to exercise any patent claim you happen to own. CC0 was never all that strong. It is probably going to be parsed in court as a dedication to the public domain rather than a contract. There is thus some question of how binding the terms could be on the grantor. And you have not put this particular term through legal review?
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
