[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

[Russ Nelson]

Bruce Perens writes:
 > We should note that CC's explanation of the reason for patent language 
 > in CC0 was that the entities dedicating the content /did/ have patents 
 > related to that same content, and wanted to monetize them. Or they would 
 > not have asked for the language. IMO this refutes the argument that they 
 > are the parties least likely to bring suit.

A patent-waiver license provides no protection against patent holders
because they'll have somebody else release the code.

The CC0 is not a patent-waiver license, so any evidence discerned from
its creation does not address my point.

You have no evidence that anybody has licensed self-patented code
under the BSD (or any other OSI approved) license. Your conclusion is
that they have an implicit patent license. My conclusion is that they
are the parties least likely to bring suit -- either they don't care
about OSI approval or they are no longer the patent holders of record.

-- 
--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