[License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Mar 1 21:17:37 UTC 2017

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lrosen at rosenlaw.com):

> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong
> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other
> open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or
> may not) be public domain?

For whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0
was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite
its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights.
> The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD
> and MIT licenses. 

I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an
_implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0.
I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were
that clause removed.  But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy
of the good.

Cheers,                                      299792458 meters per second.  Not
Rick Moen                                    just a good idea.  It's the law.
rick at linuxmafia.com                
McQ! (4x80                        

More information about the License-discuss mailing list