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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Alexander Terekhov dixit:

>> ND isn’t Open Source, though.
>
>Please explain in details what do you mean by proclaiming that "ND
>isn’t Open Source",

Oh sorry. No Derivatives. The text you cited was clear on applying
only to unmodified works.

>> Furthermore, think of liabilities.
>
>Likewise, details, please.

Disclaimers in copyright licences usually exist to reduce them to
a minimum. Who’s liable for PD stuff? Also, if I want to include a
“PD” work in another work, which I publish under an OSS licence,
this may be an issue.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
  “Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
          a peeing section in a swimming pool.”
						-- Edward Burr