On 03/08/2012 12:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
the notion that anyone who thinks new licences ought to address patent issues in some way is logically obliged to try to revoke BSD licence's OSI Certified status (or formally deprecate the licence) is absurd, and we could have done without those and similar time-wasting polemics.
And they should stop now, please.
(3) Irrespective of CC0's merits as a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright regime, and the equally delusional belief that it's even desirable to try (and thereby, among other problems, have no protection against warranty claims).Which makes it not tremendously worthy of the continuing effort to get it approved, IMO.
most of us agree that it's useful for newly crafted licences to permit at least implicit patent defences if not explicit patent rights, and that modern licences that address such matters are, all other things being equal, a better idea than ones that don'tDiBona called for it to be explicit in licenses going forward, I agree. Let's not ignore how the times have changed and what we have learned since starting with Open Source.
-- but that saying that is miles away from saying BSD should be formally deprecated.To be put in whatever hole is reserved for all "if you do this, you must also shoot yourself in the foot" arguments.
Thanks
Bruce
<<attachment: bruce.vcf>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
