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

[McCoy Smith]

didn't see lukas' message before i sent and he captures a lot of the 
same issues I flagged.

On 12/18/2024 5:41 AM, Lukas Atkinson wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241218/a6dfe33b/attachment-0001.htm>