[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

[Karl Fogel]

Christopher Webber <cwebber at creativecommons.org> writes:
>By this email we (Creative Commons) are formally submitting CC0 for
>approval on the OSI license list.  We've actually discussed this
>internally for some time, but wanted to see if there was enough of a
>demand from people external to CC to see this happen.  I'm happy to
>say that we've gotten a lot of pressure recently to make that
>submission, so it looks like that's in proper alignment.

Thank you very much, Chris!  We'll discuss here, and I'm very much
looking forward to it.  Would you like us to keep you CC'd explicitly on
the review process, or will you be following it on-list anyway?

More soon; I just wanted to give a public "ACK" response since your mail
sat in the queue for a bit (sorry about that).

-Karl

>CC0 is a "public domain tool"; that is to say, it attempts to make
>releasing something into the public domain possible worldwide.  Where
>possible, the tool is designed to put something into the public
>domain.  Where that is not possible, there is a lightweight "fallback"
>license.
>
>You can find the "deed", which describes the legal tool, here:
>  http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
>Additionally, the actual legalcode for the license is available here:
>  http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>
>Some additional background here:
>  http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ
>
>As you may know, last year Creative Commons worked with the FSF on a
>similar process to attempt to clarify whether CC0 was acceptable for
>free software per the FSF's definitions, and to check to make sure CC0
>(including its fallback license) was GPL-compatible.  I'm happy to say
>that this was a massive success:
>
> - A CC blogpost after the FSF declares CC0 as acceptable for
>   software, compatible with the GPL:
>   http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081
>
> - The FSF's listing, which includes the statement "If you want to
>   release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0.":
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
>
> - Also, as we blogged on CC Labs, the FSF recommends CC0 for
>   "code snippets" in documentation:
>   http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/05/27/fsf-recommends-cc0-for-code-snippets-in-documentation/
>
> - CC0 FAQ entry on using CC0 for software, including suggested
>   marking:
>   http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F
>
> - Lastly, we do provide a plaintext version of CC0 (and actually the
>   core, unported 6 CC licenses these days):
>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt
>   http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27094
>
>Speaking personally, I believe that simplifying the "public domain
>tool with fallback license" space is a good thing, and would be useful
>for FOSS generally.  Conversely, I think CC0 on OSI's license list
>would be useful in that many code hosting platforms look to OSI's list
>when determining whether or not to list a license as an option... and
>I think it would be great if CC0 were listed more often in such places!
>
>Thanks!
> - Christopher Allan Webber & Creative Commons
>
>PS: Sorry if this ends up being a repost.  It didn't seem to go
>through the first time I sent it.
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review