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

Fri Mar 2 06:59:08 UTC 2012

Either:

+1 or

-1 if we also deprecate any license without an explicit patent grant.

By Bruce's own logic, we should be telling people to avoid gray
areas. The implicit patent grant is a gray area. Thus, if Bruce is
correct, we should deprecate the BSD and many other licenses.
-russ

Bruce Perens writes:
 > -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
 > <html>
 >   <head>
 >     <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
 >   </head>
 >   <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
 >     -1<br>
 >     <br>
 >     From CC's own admission, the dedication and fallback license are not
 >     primarily intended for software, but for scientific data.<br>
 >     Again by their own admission, the <i>intent </i>was to exclude a
 >     patent grant. This is of course the wrong answer for software.<br>
 >     It would be simple enough for us to construct a version of the
 >     document without the problem. We have sufficient counsel available.<br>
 >     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.<br>
 >     <br>
 >     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.<br>
 >     Why would we want to put our own developers in that trap?<br>
 >     If OSI approves the document, naive programmers will use it, relying
 >     on OSI's imprimateur with no awareness of its problems.<br>
 >     <br>
 >         Thanks<br>
 >     <br>
 >         Bruce<br>
 >   </body>
 > </html>
 > begin:vcard
 > fn:Bruce Perens
 > n:Perens;Bruce
 > org:Perens LLC
 > adr:1563 Solano Ave.;;PMB 549;Berkeley;CA;94707;USA
 > email;internet:bruce at perens.com
 > title:Strategic Consultant
 > tel;work:+1-510-4PERENS (510-473-7367)
 > url:http://perens.com/
 > version:2.1
 > end:vcard
 > _______________________________________________
 > License-review mailing list
 > License-review at opensource.org
 > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review