[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd.de
Thu Aug 31 19:50:08 UTC 2017

Hi list,

during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that
it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead
of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and
allows for a _lot_ of possibilities.

Of course…

>Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot of

… the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not
only no licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it
but also an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant.

But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the
EU and USA sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight,
differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative
of a CC0 work needs to be put under.

I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt

More information about the License-discuss mailing list