[License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

Tobie Langel tobie at unlockopen.com
Thu Apr 23 18:25:09 UTC 2020

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 20:03 Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:

> For the
> suggested use case, I’d say CC0 may be better, especially as
> it’s not a work licence but licences the ability to licence
> the work, so any recipient can licence the work under any OSI-
> approved (or not, I guess) licence. Might be even better as
> its disclaimer is attached to the licence to licence the work
> (“to exercise Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights in the
> Work”). And CC0 doesn’t even need to be specifically OSI-ap‐
> proved for all this to work.)

iirc, the problem with CC0 is that the author explicitly retains all patent
rights (4a). Probably not a legal issue for such cases, but may well be an
import perception issue.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200423/aa4a2e5d/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list