> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:28 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? > > On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@opensource.org> > wrote: > > >If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent > >language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that. > > > >Richard > > The point is that the implementers of the open source policy within the > federal government doesn¹t care that CC0 isn¹t OSI approved. Nor > do they have standing to submit CC0 anyway so Creative Commons would have to > do so. > > Why would they bother? The FSF already recommends CC0 for public domain > release and so does the US government (or a notable part > of it anyway). > > I also doubt that any patent grant drafted by US government lawyers would be > broad but necessarily nuanced so it wouldn¹t fare any > better than NOSA v2.0. I¹m curious, when is the next board meeting and are > you going to allow an up or down vote on NOSA at that > meeting?
I am VERY interested in this; I will be attending the USG Open Source policy meeting on Thursday, if someone can tell me where NOSA 2.0 is at this point, I could fill in everyone else there. Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
