[License-review] veto against Unlicence
eric at wwahammy.com
Fri May 15 14:25:16 UTC 2020
May I propose that we could end this discussion if OSI could pay for an
hour or two of an open source-experienced European copyright attorney's
It seems to be in OSI's interest to not promote a license that may have a
pitfall in it and, while the discussion has been passionate and
well-intentioned, it all seems to obscure the fact that none of us seem to
really know the answer.
On Fri, May 15, 2020, 8:32 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> On 5/15/2020 9:27 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:34 PM Langley, Stuart <Stuart.Langley at disney.com>
>> The issue this creates is that the author can’t make a valid transfer to
>> the public domain. Transfers are not allowed. The author’s completely
>> clear and unambiguous intent to transfer does not change that. The only
>> option is to license sufficient rights. Without a license, even if the
>> author does not assert copyright, their heirs might.
> OSI has previously advised that "public domain" does not qualify as open
> source because exactly this sort of issue, varying in scope and consequence
> globally, prevents developers from being sure they have the necessary
> rights without consulting another person first. See
> The difference with the Unlicense is that it *also* clearly states what
> rights are granted. Does that not resolve any concern with the Unlicense?
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review