And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS

And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that licenses that EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM PATENT FORBEARANCE cannot be considered FOSS." ...I'd have not flagged any apparent textual contradiction – and understood the rationale better. It was the broad, unqualified allegation that CC0's text would "preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance" that created the impression of mismatch between reasoning and literal text. (And note: submission link has changed since I commented from a tiny excerpt of Fontana's announcement, and the full email.)