[License-review] Non-binding straw poll: Do you think CC0 should be approved?
cdibona at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 17:42:15 UTC 2012
-1 I don't think that any new licenses should be approved unless they
include patent clauses and that the osi should move towards deprecating
licenses that do not.
On Mar 1, 2012 11:52 PM, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:21:04AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Now, the approval process is not a matter of majority vote, but still
> > I'm curious to see how many people felt the 4a objection (or any other
> > problem) was serious enough to warrant rejection, and how many would
> > approve anyway. Knowing these ratios would help us determine whether to
> > continue investigating, perhaps by bringing in some more legal
> > expertise. (For example, one thing I wanted to do, but didn't have
> > time, was bring in the people at the FSF who evaluated CC0 and hear
> > their reasoning.)
> > If you wish to participate in this straw poll, please follow up to this
> > mail with "+1" if you think CC0 should be approved, or "-1" *followed by
> > the reason* if you don't think it should be approved.
> I must vote "-1" given how the issue has been presented.
> The OSI should not be in the business of rubber-stamping submitted
> licenses, and I think the OSI should be attempting to judge submitted
> licenses against *something* -- some principle, some standard. You
> seem to be suggesting, as others have, that the OSD *is* at least
> partly what submitted licenses are supposed to be measured against,
> which is one of the questions I had earlier asked the OSI to
> confirm. Perhaps there is still some question as to whether the actual
> content of the OSD matters, or whether the OSD has come to mean
> something more general or ceremonial than its actual rather specific
> I vote -1 because, until the OSI says otherwise, I still assume that
> the text of the OSD is what primarily guides the OSI license approval
> process, and I do not believe that the consistency of CC0 with the OSD
> has been adequately explained, particularly with respect to the
> relationship between CC0 4a and OSD 7. Nor have I seen any effort to
> explain why the de facto rejection of the MXM license is consistent
> with approval of CC0, given the similarity of the issues raised *and*
> the strength of the opinions in opposition to the MXM license. Summary
> approvals of licenses by OSI should no longer be appropriate.
> I suppose my further concern is that without such adequate rationale
> for approval, it looks like approval may be based on factors that
> perhaps ought to be illegitimate (or else ought to be disclosed by OSI
> as legitimate factors for consideration), such as the status of the
> license steward.
> - Richard
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review