[License-review] New License for Consideration - Public Benefit Zero Copyright License v. 2.0

[Carlo Piana]

Kevin, you are right. This license is both dedication to public domain AND a copyleft license (see clause 8 in the Definitions sections or 1, 2 in the license grant part).

I think this does not pass the minimum requirements for being considered at all. For starter, it admittedly has not been reviewed by a lawyer, and I doubt that a lawyer would have permitted: 

"In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in This
Software to the public domain **subject to the provisions above**"

OSI requires prior review by a lawyer because there are things that a layman very likely cannot consider, not just to enrich lawyers (who mostly do this job pro bono, as we are doing now).

Besides, it seems to deliver a grant only for copyright and not under every right that encumbers the free use of the software. 

Cheers

Carlo, in his own capacity





----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Kevin P. Fleming" <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Mercoledì, 18 dicembre 2024 12:32:35
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] New License for Consideration - Public Benefit Zero Copyright License v. 2.0

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, at 12:10, Wayne Thornton wrote:

>> Where the PBZC stands out from the CC0 is that it defines the types of software
>> and documentation to which it applies, and permits use of the public domain
>> software within commercially available software so long as the commercially
>> available software makes public the portions of source code which were used
>> subject to the PBZC.

> IANAL, and I don't play one on TV, but this seems untenable: if the copyright
> holder applies a 'license' which disclaims their copyright interest in the
> work, they will not have any standing or mechanism to enforce such a
> restriction. The only thing that gives them such standing in the normal case is
> their ownership of a copyright interest in the work.

> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily
> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org