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

[McCoy Smith]

Let's remember that CC-0 is also a public domain dedication and a 
license. The license part is intended as a backstop in jurisdictions 
where the concept of dedicating something to the public domain does not 
exist.

I sort of feel like it is not necessarily fatal to have the two concepts 
together in a single "license," but CC-0 makes it clearer that it 
operates in the way above -- complete dedication to public without 
restriction in places where that can be done, otherwise extremely 
permissive license without restrictions --  and this license really 
doesn't. So I sort of  feel like that problem could be fixed with some 
redrafting along the lines of how CC-0 does it, although to be fair it 
doesn't make sense to have a license where in jurisdictions with public 
domain dedications it is public domain, and in jurisdictions where you 
don't it is copyleft -- that concept likely violates OSD 5 as it 
discriminates against people in non-public domain dedication jurisdictions.

Having said that, there are a lot of other problems with the way this 
license is drafted, which does counsel someone with some legal drafting 
background (particularly software licenses, and possibly even open 
source software licenses) be engaged to help with this one. For example, 
the whole concept of "FOSS" vs "COSS" in here is very poorly written, 
and probably a legal no-op (the application of the license to "Software 
which is designed to interact with closed, proprietary software in such 
a way that not all code is publicly available" likely runs afoul of the 
European Software directive on interoperability, as well as 
Google/Oracle in the USA) as well as the whole idea of an "intent" to 
"inure to the Public Benefit" (is that a condition of the license? does 
it discriminate against uses of the software that are not for the 
"Public Benefit"?).

So I agree with Carlo this one really needs a legal review and some 
thought put into how it is structured and the scope to which it current 
purports to reach. It could be that the goals of this are completely 
incompatible with the OSD (in this draft, they are); if so, it should be 
rejected.

On 12/18/2024 3:46 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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