On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 07:04 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > > The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it > > explicitly withheld patent rights [2]. > > Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on > license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they should > consider just dropping the withholding-patent-rights language completely > (for the reasons cited in OSI's FAQ). I don't think anyone on > license-review said it was, to borrow the expression, a deal-breaker, > just a bad idea to put into a licence generally.
Is there any good reason why an individual shouldn't use a dedication and and fall-back license derived from the CC0 by removing the patent clause? I know the Copyright Commons didn't want to publish an alternative, since it would dilute their message. However, perhaps someone could strike the words "or patent", give it a fancy name, and submit it here? Clark _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
