[License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Nov 14 20:05:33 UTC 2013
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800
Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
> 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.
I am inclined to agree. John Cowan has said that this is in fact a
frequently asked question - is that the impression of anyone else?
> 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,
CC0 was not rejected per se: it was withdrawn before the OSI board had
an opportunity to vote on it. (How many licenses have been 'rejected'
in any official sense?)
> 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.
I am not sure there should be a specific FAQ entry on CC0. Maybe one
unified question and answer on public domain dedications that notes the
history around CC0.
More information about the License-discuss