Karl, Fontana and I appear to be agreed that*CC should be asked to add language to CC0: an explicit permission to make use of patent claims necessary to use the software in the form that was dedicated or licensed. This should apply to both public domain, and the fallback license. * Others on the list are sufficiently concerned with the problem, as evidenced by the current discussion. At this point, I think you should ask CC to work on that. I don't see why they'd be unwilling to add text clarifying the issue. Consideration of CC0 could then continue without the problem. Granting approval before CC has at least been given an /opportunity/ to make this clearer would be a disservice to developers. Thanks Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120219/60e270f4/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bruce.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 266 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120219/60e270f4/attachment.vcf> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4447 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120219/60e270f4/attachment.p7s>