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

[Chuck Swiger]

On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:
> 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.

The MXM license was obviously not OSD-compliant because you cannot discriminate against commercial use of  software and still be "open source".

I think the actual effect of the CC0 license includes a covenant or promise by the Affirmer to not bring action to users of the CC0-licensed work for any reason, including patent rights, trademarks, or anything else.  If that isn't what folks mean to do, then they should find a different license to use than CC0.

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck