[License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Mon Mar 12 16:45:20 UTC 2012
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
More information about the License-review