[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

[Thorsten Glaser]

Lawrence Rosen dixit:

>I'll excuse you (for whatever that matters) but I won't let your
>comments ride unchallenged. :-)

As should be ;-)

>Whether you deal with patents or any of the myriad other permutations
>of rules that can be plugged into open source licenses, there are no
>easy license categories. We've tried before here, and the resulting
>categorizations have been nearly useless to simplify the distinctions.

I see. Okay, that (especially the BTDT part) makes my suggestion less
useful.

>justify that we reject it. There is nothing we have identified about
>the CC0 license that comes close to violating any of the provisions of
>the OSD. We have approved licenses we don't like in the past -- after
[…]
>can we please invite them back and approve their CC0 license even

That was my point. Sort of, at least. Nobody said that CC0 violates
the OSD (more than any of the already approved licences), so the
lesser evil may actually be approving it. And to make everyone happy
I suggested a second standard… but, as you pointed out, that probably
isn’t going to work.

Have a nice day,
//mirabilos
-- 
08:05⎜<XTaran:#grml> mika: Does grml have an tool to read Apple
     ⎜    System Log (asl) files? :)
08:08⎜<ft:#grml> yeah. /bin/rm. ;)       08:09⎜<mrud:#grml> hexdump -C
08:31⎜<XTaran:#grml> ft, mrud: *g*