[License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Thu Nov 14 15:32:59 UTC 2013
It isn't extremely odd given the discussion about public domain right above it, because folks interested in open source are generally aware of Creative Commons and the fact that the FSF recommends the use of CC0 if you wish to release your work to the public domain:
A year after the public handwringing on 4A the FSF still appears to recommend the use of CC0.
The wording appears to me to be neutral, just mildly embarrassing for the OSI that it couldn't get it's act together to actually accept CC0 or reject CC0 or provide a useful alternative for folks wishing to do a public domain declaration. Instead it sat and dithered.
What isn't neutral or historically accurate about it?
From: Luis Villa <luis at lu.is<mailto:luis at lu.is>>
Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>>
Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:46 AM
To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>>
Subject: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss