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

[Nigel T]

Seriously? 

What’s “tragic” is that it literally takes less time to google “cc0 software” and clicking the first link than ironically promoting an “oft repeated error” after castigating Rob about doing so.    

What you wrote wasn’t mildly inaccurate but utterly wrong.  Enough so that you’d almost have to think it is a deliberate error to spread FUD about CC0 not being suitable for software:

“We hadn’t set out with CC0 to improve on public domain dedications for software. However, since the release of CC0, we’ve been approached a number of times about using CC0 to dedicate software to the public domain. While we were happy to hear of this unanticipated demand, we wanted to tread very carefully so as to not create any unintended consequences for the free software ecosystem. This led to discussions with the Free Software Foundation, the steward of the GPL and moral leader of the free software movement.

We’re really happy to announce that the Free Software Foundation has added CC0 to its free software licenses list (which includes public domain terms). As usual, the FSF’s language is extremely clear, so we simply quote two sections from their list:

CC0

CC0 is a public domain dedication from Creative Commons. A work released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0 also provides a simple permissive license as a fallback. Both public domain works and the simple license provided by CC0 are compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0.”


Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 17, 2018, at 2:00 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 
> Quoting Nigel T (nigel.2048 at gmail.com):
> 
>> 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...
> 
> I'd call that 30% amusing, 70% tragic, because Creative Commons warns
> people that CC0 is not a _software_ licence, and ought not to be used as
> one.  (I paraphrase, having not gone to re-find the link.)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181017/565bd52d/attachment.html>