On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > >> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license, >> precisely because it did not grant a patent license. > > As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't > accurately summarise its substance: We were in the middle of a > conversation with the submitter about whether CC would consider removing > CC0's blanket exclusion of all patent rights including implied grants, > when the submitter withdraw the licence from the review process -- but > there's no reason to think approval would have been denied, otherwise. > There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant.
I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus, wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me, that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party withdrew the submission. That discussion actually referenced another prior submission, the MXM License related to the MPEG standard reference implementation (http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-patent-agnostic) where the main reason for submitting the license was to carve out the patent license from MPL. This submission was also not approved and was cited as precedent when discussing the CC0 license. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
