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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Nigel T (nigel.2048 at gmail.com):

> 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.    

You know, first, it was 11pm in my time zone.  I was about to go to bed
when I made that brief comment, and disinclined to go doing Internet
research at that hour, and therefore qualified my remark as 'I haven't
searched for the link' so it would be understood in that spirit.  In any
event:

> 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:
[...]

Below the ellipsis, you quoted from
https://creativecommons.org/2011/04/15/using-cc0-for-public-domain-software/
(without citing the URL, but I'm glad to supply it for clarity's sake).

Parts of the page you did _not_ quote are exactly those that in
significant part support my assertion that Creative Commons doesn't
recommend CC0 for software -- (though I perhaps should have said it
didn't _intend_ CC0 for software, but has become partially supportive of
the idea since I last looked at CC's writings on the matter (addressed
below).  (I stressed in the prior posting that I had _not_ gone to
re-find the link:  Now that I've done so, I find an incrementally
different stance from what was there when I last visited, some years
back.)

The page starts out by saying:

   The basic idea of Creative Commons, offering free copyright tools, is
   copied from the free software movement. However, CC licenses are not
   intended to be used to release software, as our FAQ has always said.

'FAQ has always said' links to
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F  Text goes on:

   One important reason why Creative Commons licenses should not be used
   to release software is that they aren’t compatible with existing free
   software licenses, most importantly the GPL from the Free Software
   Foundation, which is used by over half of free software projects. A
   commons fractured by legal incompatibilities is a weak commons, and it
   would be deeply contrary to our mission to fracture the commons of
   software. (It should also be noted that the FSF helped unfracture the
   non-software commons by facilitating Wikimedia’s migration to CC BY-SA
   as the main content license of Wikipedia and its sibling sites.)

The CC wiki entry that primarily covers all of this,
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F
, strikes me as expressing ambivalence about use of CC0 for software.
(This FAQ entry is new to me.  My upthread remark was based on the 
state of affairs when I last looked at this issue, around the time CC0
was proposed for OSI review.)  The FAQ entry says, closely paraphrased, 
sure, CC0 is suitable for an attempted dedication of software to 
the public domain, unlike _other_ CC licences that should not, but you
really ought to consider alternatives such as GPL 3.0 or Apache 2.0.

Oh, you know, on reflection, just in case you'd turn around and claim I
distorted the FAQ language, here it is verbatim:

  May I apply CC0 to computer software? If so, is there a recommended
  implementation?

  Yes, CC0 is suitable for dedicating your copyright and related rights in
  computer software to the public domain, to the fullest extent possible
  under law. Unlike CC licenses, which should not be used for software,
  CC0 is compatible with many software licenses, including the GPL.
  However, CC0 has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative and
  does not license or otherwise affect any patent rights you may have. You
  may want to consider using an approved OSI license that does so instead
  of CC0, such as GPL 3.0 or Apache 2.0

(Implicitly this paragraph classifies CC0 as not a CC0 _licence_, which
is an odd distinction because it absolutely is, as to that instrument's
fallback permissive language.)

I hadn't intended my brief remark to trigger some sort of dogfight about
CC0, of all things.  Might we drop this, please?  Thank you.