Re: the edited CC0 stuff

Yeah i now think "associated with" are too ambigous

Originally i only plan to use that license to release my own code but when
i open for contributors i will have to take their rights into account too...

Do you have any advice for that too?

Reply to:
[email protected]
wrote:
### BEGIN ###
I think the proper language would be to grant rights to parents that are
"necessarily practiced in the work as issued by the grantor". Because of
course anyone can modify the work to exercise any patent claim you happen
to own.

CC0 was never all that strong. It is probably going to be parsed in court
as a dedication to the public domain rather than a contract. There is thus
some question of how binding the terms could be on the grantor.

And you have not put this particular term through legal review?

_______________________________________________
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
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org