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

Brendan Scott lists at opensourcelaw.biz
Sat Mar 3 11:33:34 UTC 2012


* the OSD doesn't draw a distinction between copyrights and patents. 
* if you grant half a permission (eg copyrights but not patents) you're not actually granting permission. Compare: "I license you to use the inside of the ball, but not the outside". 

On 03/02/2012 05:21 PM, Karl Fogel 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

More information about the License-review mailing list