[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Tue Aug 29 18:31:43 UTC 2017
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
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss