[License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

[Luis Villa]

Hey, all-
I was just looking at the FAQ entry on CC0, and two things jump out:

   1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular
   rejected license, and no others. I would recommend removing this FAQ entry
   on that grounds. Tangentially, as I pointed out earlier on this list, we
   probably should maintain a list of rejected licenses, and the reasons for
   their rejections, so that future license authors (and license-review
   members!) can refer to those precedents in a useful, non-mythological,
   manner.
   2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected
   licenses, if it stays anywhere on the site, it should be rewritten to make
   it neutral and historically accurate; it is neither of those things right
   now. Any takers? If not, I'll get to it eventually, but I'd love for
   someone else to tackle it.

Thanks-
Luis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20131113/54ea4147/attachment.html>