[License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

[Bruce Perens]

On 03/09/2012 11:41 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> As an afterthought, OSI _might_ decide to adopt a policy that all new 
> licences should at least not disclaim/waive any implicit patent waiver 
> that might be created against patents held by licensor (estoppel 
> defence) -- or establish some other minimum requirement on that subject.
...
> If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't 
> necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2 
> implies it.
In other words, do what has previously been done, but consistently.

     Thanks

     Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120309/ad330eaa/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120309/ad330eaa/attachment.p7s>