[License-discuss] [License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

[Clark C. Evans]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 03:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
| Given CC0 expresses a willingness to license, surely an estoppel
| is created regardless of whether the abandonment is effective?

I'm not a legal professional, but I think it's the exact opposite, 
in *no* case is a patent license granted: section 3 is quite clear 
that only "Copyright and Related Rights" are granted and section 4a 
that explicitly excludes any patent license.  

As a thought experiment, would something I think equivalent, like this
Crayon license be acceptable to the OSI?

Permission, *only under Copyright and Related Rights*, is hereby
granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software
and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the
Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

No trademark or *patent* rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned,
surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


P.S.  I'm cc'ing people since my posts are being held in the moderator
queue.