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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Lawrence Rosen dixit:

>opinions about patents. For that reason, among others, I'd rather approve
>CC0 with all its uncertainties than wait for the world to change.

Some days ago, in one of the CC0 threads, I suggested to have a second
class of licence approval, for those who meet more standards than just
being a copyright licence that is OSD compliant.

How about this? Licences for the second set are drawn from the general
set of all OSI approved licences, but need not stay in it forever (OSI
doesn’t revoke approval once granted and not in error), such as when a
new version comes out. It would address issues beyond OSD. It need not
make the regular OSI approval mean less, but considering basically any
OSD compliant licence ought to get it…

As for the additional standards, they should be simple. I think if you
say that the licence must give all rights (copyright, patent, database
and trademark, at least) the distributor can give and allow them to be
passed on, we get it, for a while. (If that can be done with trademark
law; otherwise, there should be a note why it’s excluded.) Being writ-
ten or edited by a legal professional could be another; being current,
the final one, allowing for swapping in a replacement.

Uh oh. I hope this doesn’t open too much controverse. It’s 2am here so
please excuse any glaring errors.

gn8,
//mirabilos
-- 
[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :)  -- Ted Unangst über *fs