[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval
mark at klomp.org
Sat Feb 18 19:57:16 UTC 2012
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 02:33:38PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 05:38:23PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > 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".
I think that is a way too narrow reading, since without an (implicit)
patent right from the affirmer one cannot excercise the express
statement of purpose which includes commercial use of the source code.
But it would be good to get creative common's affirmation that is the
actual intent and that clause 4 is not meant to take away any (implicit)
rights granted through clause 2 or 3.
More information about the License-review