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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce at perens.com):

> 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.

That makes sense, and my thanks to you, Richard Fontana, and others for
pointing out the problems potentially caused by not merely declining to 
grant explicit patent rights but also eliminating the possibility of
equitable estoppel (aka estoppel by representation of fact) and
thus foreclosing the option of reliance-based defences.

The business model you and others have outlined should seem familiar:
It's reminiscent of the 'academic' software copyright licensing common
in the 1970s and 1980s everywhere except UC Berkeley and MIT, where the
universities freely permitted redistribution and creation of derivative
works for all non-commercial usage, letting that usage drive demand for
the commercial rights they reserved.

-- 
Cheers,                      Remember: "its" means "it is", and "it's"
Rick Moen                    is the possessive form of "it". 
rick at linuxmafia.com                                  -- FakeAPStylebook
McQ!  (4x80)