[License-review] Non-binding straw poll: Do you think CC0 should be approved?

[Bruce Perens]

-1

 From CC's own admission, the dedication and fallback license are not 
primarily intended for software, but for scientific data.
Again by their own admission, the /intent /was to exclude a patent 
grant. This is of course the wrong answer for software.
It would be simple enough for us to construct a version of the document 
without the problem. We have sufficient counsel available.
So, the only reason to approve the version with the problem is that it 
comes from CC, and that we feel it's important to support CC even when 
the result isn't that good for software. If this is the case, we would 
be approving the document for political reasons rather than because it's 
a good document for software developers to use.

Under the CC document, a party that has licensed a patent and dedicates 
the software exercising that patent is obligated to help the licensee of 
the patent to prosecute the party using the software.
Why would we want to put our own developers in that trap?
If OSI approves the document, naive programmers will use it, relying on 
OSI's imprimateur with no awareness of its problems.

     Thanks

     Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120301/83490665/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120301/83490665/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120301/83490665/attachment.p7s>