Hi list, during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a _lot_ of possibilities.
Of course… >Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot of … the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not only no licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it but also an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant. But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the EU and USA sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight, differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative of a CC0 work needs to be put under. JFYI, IANAL, etc. //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss