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

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Nov 14 22:07:58 UTC 2013

Quoting Luis Villa (luis at lu.is):

> 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.

I think CC0 richly deserves coverage on obvious grounds of it being a
frequent object of questions.

Luis, there is a gaping logic gap between saying that the FAQ should not
detail one single 'rejected' (actually withdrawn) licence and saying
that coverage of CC0 should be removed from the FAQ.  If you're saying
the current FAQ entry comes across rather too much like merely detailing
one withdrawn licence, then maybe it needs revision -- but I would say
removing that item would obviously injure the core purpose of a FAQ.

Can you detail what you mean when you say it is not 'neutral' and not
'historically accurate'?   

I can see where you might call it non-neutral in the wording of the
introductory sentence:  'At this time, we do not recommend releasing
software using the the CC0 public domain dedication.'  Thus worded, I
would speculate that this claim exceeds the facts, given that the Board
does not advise anyone about what terms to apply to software, but merely
either certifies licences or doesn't certify them.

But in which particulars is it historically inaccurate?  I ask not to
challenge the characterisation but out of a wish to hear what you mean.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list