<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
<div>Oops.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My comment is that there is no red line for patents in the OSD. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Either get the necessary consensus to change the OSD or stop debating this in every single Open Source license submission and holding them up.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The FACT remains that non-OSI approved licenses, namely CC0, are considered Open Source by many open source practioners so your opinion is not necessarily the majority view and certainly not the universal view.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Tzeng, Nigel H. <<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Friday, Aug 11, 2017, 11:45 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and Document License</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Carlo Piana <<a href="mailto:carlo@piana.eu">carlo@piana.eu</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Thursday, Aug 10, 2017, 6:08 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>license-review@opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and Document License</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<style>
<!--
.EmailQuote
{margin-left:1pt;
padding-left:4pt;
border-left:#800000 2px solid}
-->
</style><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="PlainText">On 09/08/2017 21:15, <br>
<br>
The scope of a FOSS license is to give permission to do things with<br>
software. They are *historically* conceived as copyright licenses<br>
because *historically* that was what drafters understood it was the<br>
regime under which rights had to be conferred on software.<br>
<br>
If different rights insist on software, the owner of those rights who<br>
purports to give permission *must* give those permission under all the<br>
rights she may have, or the openness test would miserably fail.<br>
<br>
Otherwise it is like opening one lock of a door, with the other<br>
remaining closed. The door will not open. So if the license is a key,<br>
you cannot just say "this key will conditionally open all the copyright<br>
locks on my doors" and claim that the doors will be "open doors". If<br>
there are patent locks of yours, the doors will remain shut. [0]<br>
<br>
A license which only gives copyright licenses but refuses to do so for<br>
patents is not an open source license in my and many others' opinion.<br>
It's a public license, it is valid, it has some scope, but it's not open<br>
source.<br>
<br>
I invite OSI to take a stance once for all as to this conceptual ambiguity.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
</span></font></blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>