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

Carlo Piana osi-review at piana.eu
Fri Mar 2 07:22:48 UTC 2012


As a submitter of the MXM license, I would be puzzled if CC0 was 
approved and MXM remained disapproved. Or someone should in case explain 
which different rationale applies apart from an /ad personam/ one or 
that the MXM contained at least a limited patent covenant for 
distribution in source code.

FYI, MPEG adopted BSD for the MXM reference software after rejection of 
MXM license. I am not aware that MPEG has changed its stance on patents 
ever since.


And neither have I, being firmly and aggressively against software 
patents – but this is hardly the point. As it is the fact that I 
understand, respect, and probably approve the reason for rejection of my 
own submission



On 02/03/2012 07:44, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> -1
> Reason: the exclusion of patents in 4a. (I was mostly perhaps focusing
> on this since it had already been pointed out, and hence didn't try
> hard to find more problems. But it seems likely that this is the only
> problem and there are no others.) Explicit exclusion of patents is
> against OSI license-review precendent (MXM).

More information about the License-review mailing list