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.
Greetings! Tangentially related to this list, but I hope that many of
you will be interested: Creative Commons has published a draft of its
process and criteria for determining licenses compatible with the 4.0
ShareAlike licenses. This is still a draft and open for community
consultation until the
Richard Fontana scripsit:
> When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7
> as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant
> in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised
> when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depen
On Sat, 03 May 2014 14:00:53 -0500
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Richard Fontana writes:
> >Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0
> >inconsistency problem in a different form. Consider the case of
> >public domain source code created by a US government employee,
> >having
On Sat, 3 May 2014 22:07:19 +0300
Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Does the US government grant itself patents,
Yes.
> and if so, what does it
> do with those patents?
Many are licensed to the private sector for revenue.
- RF
___
License-discuss mailing l
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
> Does the US government grant itself patents, and if so, what does it do
> with those patents?
In the case of 6630507, they apply criminal sanctions to people who
seek to make use of the patented technology. Google for [patent 6630507].
--
John Cowan http://www.
Karl Fogel scripsit:
> The patent issue would apply just as much if it were MIT- or
> BSD-licensed, though, and we'd call it "open source" then, right?
Indeed. We may not be in the business of approving licenses without
patent grants any more, but nobody can say that licenses that don't
grant pa
That's an interesting angle to bite on...
Does the US government grant itself patents, and if so, what does it do
with those patents?
On 3 May 2014 06:45, "Richard Fontana" wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:55:55 -0500
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>
> > This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated
Richard Fontana writes:
>This work's authors seem to explicitly say that they are dedicating it
>to the public domain, not merely (or explicitly at all, as far as
>I can see here) relying on the notion of statutory public domain for
>US government works. I'd argue those are two different concepts
9 matches
Mail list logo
