Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong > with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other > open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or > may not) be public domain?
For whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0 was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights. > The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD > and MIT licenses. I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an _implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0. I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were that clause removed. But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy of the good. -- Cheers, 299792458 meters per second. Not Rick Moen just a good idea. It's the law. r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
