Maybe. But given that CC0 expressly does not convey patent rights, and I believe the intent here is to convey patent rights (via an express license, as in Apache 2.0), CC0 may not be an option the USG wants here.
[although CC0 with a plug-in patent grant might work....] From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:20 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote: CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it would be a potential option. ;) As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. Cheers! Sean [1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
