Henrik Ingo scripsit: > The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it > explicitly said "you get rights a and b but not c", with c a necessary > right to copy and use the software. It should be obvious that - even > if you'd disagree wrt patents - at least for some values of c that is > clearly not open source.
Yes, but c (patent rights) is not granted to *anyone* by CC0. Whether those rights are necessary or not, they don't come within the ambit of OSD #7, which is about indirect distributees getting the same rights as direct distributees. Here, neither kind get any patent rights, so #7 is not triggered. You could argue that selling is a patent right, and OSD #1 is violated if a patent restricts you from selling software distributed under CC0. But #1 reads to me as a restriction on the license, which contains no such provision. If the open-source nature of CC0 is to be disproved, it must be shown that it violates some clause of the OSD. This is distinct from the prudence or otherwise of certifying the license. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers. --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes" _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss