On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its > kind. If there ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation > any worse than currently exists and approval could move forward.
I'm not aware of any. There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a free software license but also GPL-compatible: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI approval. I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of licensing code under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent licenses are granted. > If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses that > explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD-inadequate, particularly > w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7. Moreover, any license approval for a new license > containing a patent disclaimer (e.g., CC0) would necessarily require > modification or accompaniment by a required patent grant mechanism (such as > ARL's approach) in order to satisfy the OSD. So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", for example? Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
