On 8/18/16, 4:24 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: >> From: License-discuss >><license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-bounces@op >>ensource.org>> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" >><mccoy.sm...@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> >> >> > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under >>CC0 1.0: >>https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/mast >>er/LICENSE.md >> >> But but but...that's not an OSI approved software license! >> >> Why did that fail again? The person who submitted didn't have standing >>or something? > >The license steward withdrew the submission following negative >reaction on license-review to the "No ... patent rights held by >Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise >affected by this document" clause. Thank you Richard. If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative is this something that should be revisited? Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is open source if it passes the OSD then we should either amend the OSD to require explicit patent grants moving forward or not block useful new licenses because of the lack of a patent grant. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
