[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Yes, but that's because US Federal Government works generally don't have copyright attached within the US, so CC0 was the best option.  That may not be the case here.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

---
Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 1:39 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
> 
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Caution-https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction
> 
> Caution-https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md < Caution-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 < Caution-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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Caution-https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 < Caution-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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171108/9f8d9a5e/attachment.p7s>