<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi Shahar.<br></div><div><br></div><div>You already got many answers, but none seem to be complete, so let me have a go...<br></div><div><br></div>On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Shahar Or <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mightyiampresence@gmail.com" target="_blank">mightyiampresence@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-size:13px">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.<br></div><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-size:13px"><a href="https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28" target="_blank">https://github.com/mightyiam/<wbr>shields-badge-data/issues/28</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Makes sense. I wouldn't do it either.</div><div><br></div><div>I should say I think Creative Commons is great and all of what they do is well intended. But for software I think there's no justification to not pick an OSI approved license. (Conversely, CC licenses are primarily designed for copyrighted works that are not software code.)<br></div><br><div>The relevant history here is as follows:</div><div><br></div><div>A couple years ago people proposed to Creative Commons to submit CC0 for OSI certification. You can find that discussion on license-review list if you want to read with your own eyes.</div><div><br></div><div>Questions were then raised about the fact that CC0 expressly excludes patents from the grant. (Which is fair in the sense that public domain is a concept related to copyright.) Many reviewers voiced an opinion that explicitly reserving the right to sue your users for patent infringment is clearly not compatible with the Open Source Definition. (Notably, OSI has previously rejected licenses on the same grounds. Search for MXL I believe?)</div><div><br></div><div>CC then withdrew it's submission. Technically then, it's never been decided whether CC0 is open source or not, but it is not OSI approved.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-size:13px">Is there good reason for this request, at all?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably not. Maybe they don't want other licenses in their repo. It's quite common for open and closed software to include small parts that are BSD, ISC, MIT, etc licensed, even if the software as a whole is licensed under its own license.</div><div><br></div><div>If they have an actual reason (that is not a policy or possibly a misinformed reason), it would have to be something that is in the ISC license and not in CC0. Seems like warranty and patents are the 2 alternatives?<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-size:13px"> I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed?</div><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-size:13px">When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license.</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Dual-license is often a good solution! You have 1 license that is OSI approved, so you are clearly open source. Then you have other licenses that meet some other specific need.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">You need to consider still, whether CC0 is a license you want to use. Is it ok that someone would distribute your software without warranty and with explicitly reserving the right to sue for patents?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Note that as long as you keep the ISC in your own repo, then people getting the software from you, will still have both the warranty and whatever patent license may be implied by the short ISC license.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra">henrik<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi" target="_blank">henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</a><br>+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo<br><a href="http://www.openlife.cc" target="_blank">www.openlife.cc</a><br><br>My LinkedIn profile: <a href="http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7" target="_blank">http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7</a></div>
</div></div>