[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not assurance it would pass.

Neither seems likely.

Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval thing.

From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>>
Date: Tuesday, Aug 29, 2017, 11:25 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org <license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and
> the US Government
>
> I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open
> Source license for the purposes of open source release on
> Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval.
>
> The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL
> compatible.
>
> CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release
> is desired.
>
> You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter
> much any more.

Thank you Nigel!  Given all that, can we PLEASE have a vote on approving CC0
as being Open Source, and add it to the approved list?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170829/f8da6d15/attachment.html>