The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it explicitly said "you get rights a and b but not c", with c a necessary right to copy and use the software. It should be obvious that - even if you'd disagree wrt patents - at least for some values of c that is clearly not open source.
The fact that many older licenses are silent/ambiguous about c, and were written in a time when c didn't exist, is a different problem. henrik On 3 May 2014 23:14, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > 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 co...@ccil.org > 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 > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
