[License-review] Non-binding straw poll: Do you think CC0 should be approved?
kfogel at red-bean.com
Fri Mar 2 06:42:54 UTC 2012
Thanks for that succint -1 explanation, Bruce.
I forgot to mention one thing in my original mail:
Everyone, please do NOT use this thread as a place for further
discussion of particular points. This poll is for data collection, not
discussion. If you wish to respond to points someone makes in their
-1, then follow up using a *different* subject line, so as to start a
new thread for that sub-discussion.
I do not want to have to wade through another zillion exchanges just
to get the results of the poll. Please help my mailreader help me
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> From CC's own admission, the dedication and fallback license are not
> primarily intended for software, but for scientific data.
> Again by their own admission, the intent was to exclude a patent grant. This
> is of course the wrong answer for software.
> It would be simple enough for us to construct a version of the document
> without the problem. We have sufficient counsel available.
> So, the only reason to approve the version with the problem is that it comes
> from CC, and that we feel it's important to support CC even when the result
> isn't that good for software. If this is the case, we would be approving the
> document for political reasons rather than because it's a good document for
> software developers to use.
> Under the CC document, a party that has licensed a patent and dedicates the
> software exercising that patent is obligated to help the licensee of the
> patent to prosecute the party using the software.
> Why would we want to put our own developers in that trap?
> If OSI approves the document, naive programmers will use it, relying on
> OSI's imprimateur with no awareness of its problems.
More information about the License-review