[License-review] [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain and CC0.

[Jim Jagielski]

++1
On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the
> non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work!  /Larry
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> Cell: 707-478-8932
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel at red-bean.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM
>> To: license-discuss at opensource.org; license-review at opensource.org
>> Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain
>> and CC0.
>> 
>> (This seems appropriate for both license-discuss@ and license-review@,
>> so
>> I'm posting it in both places.)
>> 
>> I've been seeing an increasing number of inquiries about the public
>> domain and open source, and about CC0 and open source.  A few of those
>> inquiries have come here, but I'm also getting them elsewhere.
>> 
>> So I've tried to formulate good answers:
>> 
>>   http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
>>   http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
>> 
>> I hope I've reflected the general consensus of the License Review
>> committee accurately, not made any legal mistakes, etc.  I'd appreciate
>> feedback on these.
>> 
>> The "public domain" entry is complex.  It felt wrong to simply say that
>> PD is not open source, when it clearly exhibits most or all of the
>> important properties of Open Source and is at least capable of meeting
>> the OSD; on the other hand, it is not a license and therefore cannot be
>> OSI-approved, and it has some portability problems.  So I've tried to
>> express all of that in the answer, and recommend that people use
>> OSI-approved licenses wherever possible.
>> 
>> The CC0 entry is more straightforward, but also would benefit from peer
>> review.
>> 
>> Please hold the flamethrowers, anyone who might be tempted to flame,
>> and
>> remember that these are inherently contentious and complicated
>> subjects!
>> It would be easier for the OSI to just say nothing on the topics :-),
>> but silence on these questions would not serve our mission very well.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Karl
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>