On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 20:03 Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote:
> For the > suggested use case, I’d say CC0 may be better, especially as > it’s not a work licence but licences the ability to licence > the work, so any recipient can licence the work under any OSI- > approved (or not, I guess) licence. Might be even better as > its disclaimer is attached to the licence to licence the work > (“to exercise Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights in the > Work”). And CC0 doesn’t even need to be specifically OSI-ap‐ > proved for all this to work.) iirc, the problem with CC0 is that the author explicitly retains all patent rights (4a). Probably not a legal issue for such cases, but may well be an import perception issue. --tobie >
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
