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

[Karl Fogel]

Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> writes:
>On 03/09/2012 01:12 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>> hoped my comment would be received as a gentle chiding over
>> abandonment of perspective by someone he knows
>
>It was only an issue because of other stuff on the list.

Sure, understood.

To be completely above-board: My long-term goal here -- which I think
others on this list share -- is to make the list a more welcoming place
for newcomers who a) don't have personal history with the organization
or with others on these lists, and b) don't necessarily have the thick
skins that participation here has, um, historically required.

My thesis is that the quality of license analysis will go up, not down,
if we can attract & keep some of those people.  Which is not to say the
quality is low now.  It's just that there is a high S-to-N ratio and
it's hard sometimes to extract the oil from the shale.

(My other goal is improving my metaphors.)

-Karl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120309/4625ee8b/attachment.sig>