[License-review] Non-binding straw poll: Do you think CC0 should be approved?
osi-review at piana.eu
Fri Mar 2 07:22:48 UTC 2012
As a submitter of the MXM license, I would be puzzled if CC0 was
approved and MXM remained disapproved. Or someone should in case explain
which different rationale applies apart from an /ad personam/ one or
that the MXM contained at least a limited patent covenant for
distribution in source code.
FYI, MPEG adopted BSD for the MXM reference software after rejection of
MXM license. I am not aware that MPEG has changed its stance on patents
And neither have I, being firmly and aggressively against software
patents – but this is hardly the point. As it is the fact that I
understand, respect, and probably approve the reason for rejection of my
On 02/03/2012 07:44, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Reason: the exclusion of patents in 4a. (I was mostly perhaps focusing
> on this since it had already been pointed out, and hence didn't try
> hard to find more problems. But it seems likely that this is the only
> problem and there are no others.) Explicit exclusion of patents is
> against OSI license-review precendent (MXM).
More information about the License-review