[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Feb 20 16:27:50 UTC 2012

On 2/19/12 3:08 PM, "Russ Nelson" <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

>Patent licensing is a mess. It would be better to establish one policy
>for all OSI-approved licenses, possibly modifying the OSD, than to try
>to piecemeal it one license at a time.


As a partial counterpoint to MXM PL, OSI has approved patent grants
explicitly limited to only those patents held by the individual
contributors of the code and not the whole organization they belong to in
ECL 2.0.

Someone attempting to game the system with a patent trap inside software
under an OSI approved licensed could as easily do so with ECL 2.0.  Just
make sure the software devs don't hold the patents in question.  If some
of you try to get ECL revoked on such silly grounds I will be annoyed with
you and call you names.

FWIW I view CC0 as fine as written.  Given the explicit language CC put it
there for a reason.  An explanation would be nice but not approving for
that reason strikes me as counter-productive if CC is unwilling to
change/clarify the clause.  I don't see the patent risks as any higher
with or without the clause but I do see the community poorer without a CC0

If you guys have that much heartache park it in that "special purpose
licenses" category.  Which I notice is still pointing at ECL 1.0 and not
2.0 on the website.

IANAL, speaking only for me, etc.

More information about the License-review mailing list