<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Neither seems likely.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval thing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="x_gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Tuesday, Aug 29, 2017, 11:25 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>license-discuss@opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government</span></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: License-discuss [<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org">mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org</a>] On
<br>
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM<br>
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and <br>
> the US Government<br>
><br>
> I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open <br>
> Source license for the purposes of open source release on<br>
> Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval.<br>
><br>
> The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL <br>
> compatible.<br>
><br>
> CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release <br>
> is desired.<br>
><br>
> You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter <br>
> much any more.<br>
<br>
Thank you Nigel! Given all that, can we PLEASE have a vote on approving CC0 <br>
as being Open Source, and add it to the approved list?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Cem Karan<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>