[License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Mar 9 18:25:16 UTC 2012
Quoting Jim Jagielski (jim at jimjag.com):
> But that's not the point... the point is that if we are looking
> at adjusting the OSD, or acceptance/validation of a license, based
> on whether or not it addresses patents, then why aren't we also
> worried about such issues as the export control, etc...
One possible answer is that OSI merely examines licences to see if
_they_ are suitable for open source, and has neither the remit nor the
capability of examining and judging all the surrounding circumstances of
software deployments. I'm sure other answers are also possible, but I
currently don't have time to deal with that.
> I see no difference between the statements "We can't approve this
> because it doesn't address patents" and "We can't approve this
> because it doesn't address the US export laws."
Please note that I personally articulated no such position. All I said
that was even vaguely in that direction was that I suggested OSI ask CC
to consider dropping the patent waiver from CCO clause 4a, and that I
think we all agree that modern open source licences really ought to
address patent issues in some way (and that the good ones do).
More information about the License-discuss