[License-review] License Committee Report

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Richard Fontana (fontana at sharpeleven.org):

> But the point is that I, an Affirmer, can release something under CC0,
> give it to you, and you can proceed to remove all trace of me and CC0
> and give it to someone else, consistent with the CC0 waiver and the
> fallback license.

I'd have to check, but my offhand recollection is that a number of other
OSI-certified licences likewise lack any explicit requirement that the
credits and licence text continue to be included.  (I'm not disputing
what you're saying, as I must say I'm largely in agreement.)  The
context, though, is your specific claim that (parphrasing) objections to
FPL raised earlier would have been more credible if also raised against
CC0 -- but there is a fundamental difference of type between the two as
to initial inclusion of licensor data.

> I don't actually think the license aims to 'conceal' licensors. Rather
> it says 'don't worry about recording information on who the licensor
> is'. 

Fair enough.  Let us say, then, that its language and presentation
naturally encourage omission of that information.

> One reason why this does not concern me is that I realized long ago
> that the discernable record of purported provenance and copyright
> ownership in most open source codebases is generally inaccurate and
> gets decreasingly accurate over time. 

Damned good point.  (I hope you don't mind my mentioning that I've
raised it myself on this mailing list not too long ago.)  
Yes, this is a serious matter of facts-on-the-ground and well worth
reemmbering, even though OSI surely cannot directly address it.

> Anyway I will emphasize your concern if the license is discussed at
> the board meeting.

I appreciate that.

-- 
Cheers,               NOT ALL ELECTRONS ARE NEGATIVE; some have just been hurt 
Rick Moen             in the past and are looking for a reason to trust again.
rick at linuxmafia.com                                      -- @SarcasticRover
McQ! (4x80)