[License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Mar 12 16:31:34 UTC 2012
I think most folks are willing to accept some risk and I can understand
the desire for even that 1% difference. And that risk tolerance differs
even for myself depending on the projects I'm working on.
What I would like to avoid is that 1% difference becoming a litmus test
for what is or isn't open source. It strikes me that the definition is
already too narrow. Others, I'm sure, think the definition is currently
too broad...but for that we already have the FSF. Two organizations with
narrow viewpoints strikes me as redundant.
On 3/12/12 12:04 PM, "John Cowan" <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:
>> It doesn't matter. My assertion is that simply folks that judge any
>> patent risk as too high will simply avoid the use of any software
>> that does not provide an explicit patent grant.
>Actually, such people will rationally avoid the use of all software
>except what is sold to them by a deep-pocketed company that promises to
>indemnify them against patent claims. They will certainly not develop
>their own software, so they won't care if it's open source or not.
>You don't satisfy such worrywarts by pointing out the difference between
>licenses that deal with 1% of the problem and those that deal with none
>John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
>If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
>on my shoulders.
> --Hal Abelson
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review