[License-review] OSI recognition for Creative Commons Zero License?
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Feb 2 22:01:31 UTC 2012
Quoting Carl Boettiger (cboettig at gmail.com):
> I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting I write a custom copyright
Every copyright notice is custom. Unless everyone on the planet has
been renamed to Rick Moen and every year declared to be 2012 (sorry
about my typo, earlier), when I wasn't looking.
Doesn't this forfeit the benefit using an OSI-approved licenses?
Hell no. Why would it?
> And the creative commons zero license is 121 lines. I recognize the value
> of an explicit license, but I also believe there is great value of not
> requiring users to include any copy of that license.
OK, so waive that requirement. Done.
> > > First, I often distribute software packages with data. This is
> > > common practice for R packages, for example. It is unclear that
> > > the MIT license and its kin can apply to the data, which are
> > > statements of fact and not copyright-able material.
> > If your copyright notice is unclear, you should fix that. I'm
> > sorry, but I cannot see who has a problem, here.
> I would like to use an OSI-recognized license.
I don't want to sound argumentative, but a moment ago you were claiming
it was unclear whether the MIT License, if declared to apply to a piece
of software, also applied to accompanying data. My response was 'If
your copyright notice is unclear, you should fix that. I'm sorry, but
I cannot see who has a problem, here.'
I'm not sure I can make my point more clear.
> CC0 was explicitly created to solve the license challenges I have (applying
> equally well to data and code, not burdening the user with deciding what's
> substantial, and being appropriately vetted by legal experts).
Sounds like you're yet another one of those people who'd like to
handwave away the global copyright regime. Again, you really need to
talk to the lawmakers.
> Further, is it really the position of OSI
I am not the OSI. The OSI, for its part, is not Rick Moen.
> So the primary objection to this recognition is that it comes from a random
> developer and not the folks at Creative Commons. Is that correct?
This does not appear to be a fruitful exchange, so I will not be
More information about the License-review