> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > > Hi list, > > during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does > not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of > the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a > _lot_ of possibilities. >
What possibilities? > > Of course… > > >Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot > >of > > … the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not only no > licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it but also > an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant. > > But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the EU and USA > sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight, > differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative of a > CC0 work needs to be put under. Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member states? That is, are the IP rights exactly the same between France and Germany simply because they are both a part of the EU? When Brexit happens, what then? > JFYI, IANAL, etc. > //mirabilos
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
