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

[John Cowan]

Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:

> What I would like to avoid is that 1% difference becoming a litmus test
> for what is or isn't open source.  It strikes me that the definition is
> already too narrow.  Others, I'm sure, think the definition is currently
> too broad...but for that we already have the FSF.  Two organizations with
> narrow viewpoints strikes me as redundant.

Actually, "free software" has only four defining points; "open source"
has ten.  As for specific licenses, I think there is actual disagreement
only on the obsolete Artistic V1 and APSL V1 licenses.  So I'm not clear
what you mean by "broad" and "narrow" here.

-- 
John Cowan              cowan at ccil.org          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Any day you get all five woodpeckers is a good day.  --Elliotte Rusty Harold