[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Tue Dec 13 16:17:03 UTC 2016

With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source
license to the US Government.


"We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of explicit
patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets
the definition of open source. There are other standard open source
licenses which also do not explicitly address patents."

Creative Commons recommends that CC0 be used with a patent grant for
Code.gov which the government folks at 18F are considering.

"Patents are a thing, and Creative Commons' comment on the White House
source code policy 
<https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/149>recommends an
explicit patent disclaimer, something we're considering at 18F.²


The React license appears to be in line with this strategy.  copyright
license + a patent license.

On 12/13/16, 8:49 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
<license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi):
>>> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
>>> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
>> As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
>> accurately summarise its substance:  We were in the middle of a
>> conversation with the submitter about whether CC would consider removing
>> CC0's blanket exclusion of all patent rights including implied grants,
>> when the submitter withdraw the licence from the review process -- but
>> there's no reason to think approval would have been denied, otherwise.
>> There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant.
>I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus,
>wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me,
>that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party
>withdrew the submission.
>That discussion actually referenced another prior submission, the MXM
>License related to the MPEG standard reference implementation
>where the main reason for submitting the license was to carve out the
>patent license from MPL. This submission was also not approved and was
>cited as precedent when discussing the CC0 license.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list