[License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD.

Nigel T nigel.2048 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 03:37:59 UTC 2018

> On Oct 16, 2018, at 4:34 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Historical correction:
> Quoting Rob Landley (rob at landley.net):
>> I was unaware OSI had started up again, and still don't really understand why.
>> OSI explicitly rejected Creative Commons Zero. 
> No, OSI did not do this.  Although I'm external to OSI and in no way
> speak for it, I was part of that process and would appreciate your help
> squashing the above frequently reappearing error.

Having been there too, while it is true that the OSI didn’t explicitly reject CC0, it was well on its way to not making any useful decision in any sane sort of timeframe. 

> In the middle of this discussion, the Creative Commons representative
> decided to withdraw the submission.

Probably because the futility of pursuing the submission had become exceedingly obvious. CC was NOT going to add a patent grant because existing CC0 users didn’t want one and the FSF had already approved the damn thing as-is anyway.  But the folks here opposing CC0 could keep it in limbo effectively forever.

Seriously, years after submitting NOSA and not allowing any vote to proceed the end result was when voting finally happened the board decided not to decide anything and punt it back to NASA rather than saying either “yes” or “no”.  I guess they think it’s less confrontational or something.

There was no way we were going to get an up or down vote on CC0 because of the explicit denial of providing a patent grant.  Opponents wouldn't let it be approved and everyone else would ignore a rejection.  CC did the OSI a huge favor by withdrawing without explanation.

The amusing thing is despite that withdrawal, many folks apparently believe that the OSI explicitly rejected CC0 anyway and yet it’s still widely used even with that mistaken belief...

More information about the License-review mailing list