[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sat Feb 18 18:42:09 UTC 2012

Clark C. Evans scripsit:

> As a test, you could think of adding the exact wording of section
> 4a as an "additional non-permissive term" under section 7.  

The trouble with that theory is that section 4a is not a term at all.
It neither grants nor refuses a patent license.  It's just a statement
of fact, like the other subclauses of clause 4.

This is also the reason why 4a passes muster under clause 11 of the GPLv3.
If you distribute a work containing both GPL and CC0 sections *having
actual knowledge* that there is a patent that reads on the CC0 code (whether
the author's or not), then you are in violation of the GPL.  But without
the actual knowledge, it's not a problem.  Nobody can expect, receiving
open-source code, that the distributor will defend it against arbitrary
patent claims from third parties.

As usual, IANAL, TINLA, but not the UPL either.

What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     cowan at ccil.org
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

More information about the License-review mailing list