[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Feb 27 14:21:32 UTC 2012
What on earth makes you think that the lack of OSI backing will reduce the
uptake of CC0 if CC and the FSF already back it? Especially since it was
withdrawn rather than rejected.
If I have data I'm releasing under CC0 I'm going to release any related
processing code for that data I want to PD under CC0. This makes CC0 more
useful than other public domain data dedications (like PDDL) since there's
only one license for the whole kit. If they can address some of the other
data concerns that drove OSM adoption of ODC and address software we would
have the same option for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. A single copyright license
you can apply for data, documentation and code.
Second, your suggestion that the OSI back a completely different PD
dedication with license fallback means adding to the license proliferation
problem. I'd argue against it unless you can get CC and the FSF to adopt
it as well since CC0 exists and is being used in practice.
>From my perspective I see a bunch of NIH and narrow mindedness as to what
constitutes open source.
On 2/25/12 8:29 AM, "Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 02:01 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>> Bruce Perens scripsit:
>> > If you feel strongly, please do the work.
>> I would, and gladly. But it wouldn't be CC0. People are *already*
>> publishing software under CC0, and now they can't even say it's
>> Open Source. That *sucks*.
>I think there are a half-dozen approaches to copyright dedication,
>and great many software developers use "unlicense" over CC0 instead
>since it's more in the *spirit* of BSD: short and to the point. It
>would be very nice to have one that is prepared by legal professionals.
>I think if both the OSI and the FSF backed a single dedication /w
>fallback license, you'd see people use it.
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review