[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval
nelson at crynwr.com
Sun Feb 19 20:08:54 UTC 2012
John Cowan writes:
> Karl Fogel scripsit:
> > By the awy, both MIT and BSD contain language strongly implying that
> > they are copyright notices and apply only to rights within that domain.
> What I said was that these two licenses contain the word "use", which is
> a patent rather than a copyright term of art. So either "use" conveys no
> rights, or it conveys a patent license.
OR they are belt-and-suspendering. US copyright law doesn't allow the
holder of a legally-obtained copy of a work from using or destroying
it in any way desired. But that could change, or a court could
interpret it differently, or laws outside the US may give copyright
the ability to control use.
Absent the word "patent", it's hard to claim that a copyright license
is a patent license. Our community *does* make that claim, but who
knows what a court would say?
Patent licensing is a mess. It would be better to establish one policy
for all OSI-approved licenses, possibly modifying the OSD, than to try
to piecemeal it one license at a time.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
More information about the License-review