On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote: > Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead: This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use with software.Hi Thorsten,Can you share a link to such a recommendation with a reasonable explanation ?
The OSI license-review mailing-list discussed CC0 when it was submitted for review. If you're interested in their opinion you can read that thread:
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000092.htmlThe most important issue IIRC is that it specifically does NOT license patents. Licenses suitable for software either explicitly give you a patent license (for those patents which are owned by the copyright holder(s)), or don't mention patents at all, in which case you may be able to argue in court that a patent license was implied.
-- Kuno.