[License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Mar 9 17:21:29 UTC 2012

On 03/09/2012 09:03 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> In fact, if anything, OSI has occasionally let everyone down on 
> occasion by approving really rather wretched (but thankfully now 
> obscure) licences that it should not have. So, sorry Bruce, but are 
> you smoking the funny stuff?

If you would address your comments to arguments rather than people it 
would be helpful. Let's not encourage people to do otherwise, OK?

Of course I know that OSI has accepted some absolutely horrid licenses. 
Some of which never had the benefit of the work of an attorney before 
they were approved. I've hardly been quiet in my opposition to that.

In addition, there's no short-list. I think this lets developers down too.

Is there something I'm missing?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120309/18701046/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120309/18701046/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-review mailing list