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

[Russ Nelson]

Rick Moen writes:
 > its mission to ensure that OSI Certified licences really convey the

To be clear, that would be "OSI Approved" licenses. It turns out --
and Bruce can hardly be blamed for not having a clue, because we
didn't either -- that Certification has some pretty struct
requirements under the law; requirements we couldn't meet given our
desire that use of the OSI Approved trademark be contingent solely on
use of a license which we decided met with the OSD.

 > 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.

Two lines of thought there: Yes, we can interpret what the OSD says,
and we have, just as Debian interprets what the DFSG says (in
different ways, I might point out, even though the words are
practically the same). Or, we can make a constitutional amendment like
we did with OSD#10. I think the latter procedure is more
transparent. First because we put the question to people, and second
because once the question is answered we modify the primary text,
rather than expecting them to understand all the "case law".

 > [1] Albeit, people who spend significant time addressing other people's
 > rhetorical questions generally need a better hobby.

What if I was to ask a rhetorical question now?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog