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

[Lukas Atkinson]

It seems that part of this text has been borrowed from the Unlicense:

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
> of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
> software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
> of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
> successors.


The proposed PBZC uses this section almost verbatim, with the change of
"the software" to "This Software" and the insertion of "subject to the
provisions above":

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.
> We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to
> the detriment of our heirs and successors.


Much has been written about the problems of the Unlicense, with its
arguably contradictory combination of a public domain dedication and a
copyright license, a problem that the PBZC repeats. The Unlicense is not a
particularly well-drafted license or PD dedication, and should not serve as
a model for more licenses. That it was eventually OSI-approved has more to
do with its widespread use in some circles. The legacy-approval discussions
can be found in the list archives starting in March 2020 [1] and then
continue for multiple months. In one of those messages[2], I summarize my
concerns with the Unlicense and provide some links to the even-earlier
discussion when the Unlicense was first submitted in 2012.

I would be very happy if new licenses/dedications/devices in the "PD
dedication" or "PD equivalent" category make use of this wealth of prior
discussions (well over a decade) and avoid running into the same problems.

This general concern about this kind of device is in addition to my
reservation about trying to make that PD dedication *conditional*, which
seems to contradict itself.

Another oddity is the narrow definition of "Commercial Open Source
Software", and the potential for this license to be interpreted in a way
that it is limited to use in the "general public benefit", which would be
close to an OSD#6 violation. The provision (1) may be a meaningless
statement of the license author's intention, but if it's actually a license
condition, then the PBZC is more akin to a non open-source "Ethical Source"
license:

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
> distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
> binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
> means provided:
>
> 1) This Software or Derivative Software is intended to inure to the
>    General Public Benefit,[…]


So in summary, I am confused, and I'm not 100% confident that this is an
OSD-compliant license that provides full Software Freedom. I *think* this
device is trying to be a "copyleft ethical public domain dedication", which
sounds impossible to achieve.

[1]:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/thread.html#4795
[2]:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004799.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241218/60a4c999/attachment.htm>