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

[Chris Zumbrunn]

-1 on being tolerant of explicit patent exclusion clauses.

Chris


On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 07:21, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:
> The CC0 thread was so enormous that it could sometimes be hard to
> distinguish between the volume and the content behind each point made.
>
> Now, the approval process is not a matter of majority vote, but still
> I'm curious to see how many people felt the 4a objection (or any other
> problem) was serious enough to warrant rejection, and how many would
> approve anyway.  Knowing these ratios would help us determine whether to
> continue investigating, perhaps by bringing in some more legal
> expertise.  (For example, one thing I wanted to do, but didn't have
> time, was bring in the people at the FSF who evaluated CC0 and hear
> their reasoning.)
>
> If you wish to participate in this straw poll, please follow up to this
> mail with "+1" if you think CC0 should be approved, or "-1" *followed by
> the reason* if you don't think it should be approved.
>
> Any -1 that isn't accompanied by a reason I won't count in my tally.
> (+1 responses have an implicit reason -- that the license fallback
> portion of CC0 is OSD-compatible -- so there's no need to state it).
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Karl
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review