On Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 03:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: | Given CC0 expresses a willingness to license, surely an estoppel | is created regardless of whether the abandonment is effective?
I'm not a legal professional, but I think it's the exact opposite, in *no* case is a patent license granted: section 3 is quite clear that only "Copyright and Related Rights" are granted and section 4a that explicitly excludes any patent license. As a thought experiment, would something I think equivalent, like this Crayon license be acceptable to the OSI? Permission, *only under Copyright and Related Rights*, is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: No trademark or *patent* rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. P.S. I'm cc'ing people since my posts are being held in the moderator queue. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
