On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was > submitted for OSI approval. It was withdrawn by the steward after > prolonged patent clause commentary. considering what the > implications of explicitly denying patent rights may have on the > liberal licenses. That commentary was not grounds for disapproval > and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact > discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless. So …
I think it was withdrawn before the discussion was complete. I believe there were some who felt it was inappropriate for an OSI-approved license to explicitly deny patent rights. > The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only > one eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration? If not, I > will formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of > prolific use, niche utility that differentiates it from other > licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with the OSD. https://opensource.org/approval implies that it's supposed to be the license steward. The *GPLv3 cases suggest that there's an implied exception to this where there's no likelihood that the license steward will submit a license that is nonetheless likely to be of significant interest to many in the OSI community. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
