[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Sat Feb 18 19:33:38 UTC 2012

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 05:38:23PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sat, February 18, 2012 00:03, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > OK. I would just like the OSI to confirm that this provision of the
> > Open Source Definition
> >
> >   7. Distribution of License
> >
> >   The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> >   program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> >   additional license by those parties.
> >
> >   Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by
> >   indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > is not in conflict with the provision of CC0 I quoted.
> You quote only clause 4 which says you don't get a explicit license,
> which on its own seems in conflict with definition 7 indeed. But I
> think that is mood since clause 2 and 3 clearly do say that the affirmer
> will take no legal action with respect to the work contrary to the
> affirmer's express Statement of Purpose, which include use of the work
> by the public without fear of later claims of infringement. So no
> additional license is needed.

Clauses 2 and 3 say that the Affirmer will not exercise (or will
maximally license) "Copyright and Related Rights". Read together with
4a, one must conclude that patent rights are not included in
"Copyright and Related Rights".

- RF

More information about the License-review mailing list