Richard Fontana scripsit: > When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7 > as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant > in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised > when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depends on your > view of how the OSD applies to patents.
Since it nowhere mentions them, I don't see how it can apply to them. #7 merely says that licenses of the form "You get rights a, b, and c, whereas your transferees only get rights a and b", possibly qualified by "unless they sign this", aren't open-source licenses. I continue to think that our CC0 decision was wrong insofar as it can be read as saying that the CC0 license is not an open-source (as opposed to OSI Certified) license. There may be reasons not to certify it, but not to deny that it is open source. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo: "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!" El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!" _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
