Re: Creative Commons 4.0 licenses published
<kuno <at> frob.nl> writes:
> 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.
I was recommending CC0 instead of one of the other CC licenses, ie for
things I'd expect people to use CC licenses for. None of them should be used
for software. Perhaps I should have discussed this explicitly in the post,
though the post concludes by saying CC0 isn't perfect, linking to another
post <http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/02/25/permissions/> discussing this.
> > 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.html
>
> The 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.
Indeed.
Mike
Reply to: