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.
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
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Richard Fontana
font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2014 22:07:19 +0300
Henrik Ingo henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi wrote:
Does the US government grant itself patents,
Yes.
and if so, what does it
do with those patents?
Many are licensed to the
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
I continue to think that our CC0 decision was wrong insofar as it can
be read as saying that the CC0 license is not an open-source (as opposed
to OSI Certified) license. There may be reasons not to certify it,
but not to deny that it is open source.
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
[Appreciating and agreeing with what you say, FWIW, but I have one thing
to add.]
In the end, certification is just a convenience to the users: it says
that a group of fairly knowledgeable people are willing to stand behind
the cliam that each
Richard,
I just wanted to call out a neat statistical trick you just made:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2014 11:48:13 -0500
Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
I don't know offhand the current count of OSI-approved licenses
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
Is the US governments exclusion of patents that explicit?
The only thing that makes the U.S. Government different from any other
actor in IP law is that it cannot (and therefore its employees acting in
the scope of their employment cannot) acquire copyright on any works
Simon Phipps scripsit:
We did not decide against CC0. The discussion was certainly at a low point
when Creative Commons withdrew it from the approval process, but that's
what happened, not an OSI denial. Had they persisted, I believe OSI would
have needed to face the issue of how licenses
Simon Phipps wrote in relation to CC0:
... Had they persisted, I believe OSI would have needed to face the issue
of how licenses treat patents.
There really aren't too many alternative ways for FOSS licenses to treat
patents:
* The FOSS license does not contain a patent
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
* The FOSS license does not contain a patent license.
The issue appears to be whether there is a difference for OSI purposes
between licenses that withhold patent rights and those which are silent
about them. My view is that there is not, but others disagree.
10 matches
Mail list logo
