[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):

> He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I
> guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years
> or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already
> recommends CC0 even WITH the patent statement. You came to us, not us to
> you².

Or they're _so_ short-staffed that the organisation was actually
almost completely de-funded some time in 2014, closing its
Mountain View office thus leaving it with a grand total of zero offices,
and in some considerable disarray.

> My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that
> Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever
> unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So
> they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions
> were getting more and more heated.

I was part of the (public) discussions, and it is just not correct to
assert that they were getting more and more heated.  (For the record, I
stated consistently, starting immediately upon its submission, that CC0
was manifestly open source on account of its fallback permissive
licence.)

You'll pardon me if I don't simply take your word on what you allege
about behind-the-scenes plotting.  I know only that what has been stated
upthread is a misrepresentation of the 2012 discussion, which I remember
quite well (and is also archived for the curious).

Nor am I going to get derailed onto irrelevancies.  Speaking of looking
silly.

> If you don¹t consider it was damaging then consider this: the White House
> has told government agencies that "Thou Shall Open Source 20% of Your
> Software Portfolio² and their first example was their own code.gov site
> released under CC0*.

Well, it _is_ open source.

Endless variant forms of permissive licences are.