On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote: > You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of > patent licenses (in Section 4.a). That may mean that it doesn't > address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there > might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work > distributed by the USG). > > The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been > some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).
Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both of these issues in one go and lead to something very, very good. Gerv _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
