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

[Pamela Chestek]

To be clear, we do not require review by a lawyer, only recommend it. 
That is not a blocker.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chair, Licensing Committee
Open Source Initiative

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