[License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy.

https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction
https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md


From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org> on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com>
Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM
To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0



On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiampresence at gmail.com<mailto:mightyiampresence at gmail.com>> wrote:
I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved.

That’s a reasonable concern, imho.


https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28

Is there good reason for this request, at all?

There’s no technical reason.  Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution.


I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed?

If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue.


When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license.

With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner.  Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too.
Cheers!
Sean

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171107/36e9608e/attachment.html>