On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 08:22:52 +0100 Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2014 00:59, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > > > > Wilson, Andrew scripsit: > > > > > Interesting point, though. I'd speculate that if the embedded > > > "public license fallback" inside CC0 is ever sent to OSI as a > > > stand-alone license, it would be approved. It is mighty similar > > > in effect to MIT/BSD/Apache, with the distinctive feature that it > > > explicitly disclaims patent licensing, is clearly copyright-only, > > > and therefore non-duplicative. > > > > I thought that was precisely why we rejected it. > > > > As I recall it was withdrawn by CC before we were forced to consider > whether its explicit removal of any implied patent protection was in > fact a breach of the OSD. Yes, it was voluntarily withdrawn from consideration by Creative Commons: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html - R _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
