[License-review] Submitting CC0 for OSI approval

[Christopher Allan Webber]

I'm on-list, no need to CC me.

Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> writes:

> 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