[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
Christopher Allan Webber
cwebber at creativecommons.org
Sun Feb 26 21:25:26 UTC 2012
We worked with the FSF on GPL compatibility, and this point came up.
I'm hesitant to make any points here on that subject. But we defer to
the assessment of compatibility to discussion with the stewards of the
license, in this case, the FSF.
I'm not going to state anything further on the matter because anything I
would say is speculative or speaking on behalf of them. But we did talk
about it, and I understand that they did consider it.
"Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans.com> writes:
> This updated CC0 FAQ says: "CC0 is compatible with many software
> licenses, including the GPL". I'm not sure how this is true
> since the GPLv3 has an explicit patent grant -- while it's the
> express intent and language of the CC0 to withold any patent
> license what so ever. Do you mind explaining?
> If I had a MIT license derived license together with 4d of
> the CC0, do you think that this would be an additional
> non-permissive term permitted by section 7 of the GPLv3
> even though explicitly witholding patent rights it isn't
> enumerated in a-f?
> I'm not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me.
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber at creativecommons.org> writes:
>> > PS: We will be making an adjustment to the CC0 FAQ on Monday... it's
>> > already written, actualy. It won't make a statement deprecating the
>> > possible use of CC0 for software and will mostly remain the same, but
>> > will have a note at the bottom noting that CC0 is not OSI approved. We
>> > figured that was a good compromise solution.
>> Now updated:
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review