<div dir="ltr">Rick Moen:<div>> appreciate Bruce having spoken to encourage OSI to certify 0BSD</div><div>It's already certified, the requested action is simply a name change.</div><div><br></div><div>And while you are waxing pedantic at great length about it not being equivalent to the public domain, there is also the warranty waiver.</div><div><br></div><div>But none of this is reason to deny the requested name change.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:11 PM Rick Moen <<a href="mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com">rick@linuxmafia.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Quoting Rob Landley (<a href="mailto:rob@landley.net" target="_blank">rob@landley.net</a>):<br>
<br>
> Last year there was a discussion of Github adopting 0BSD, which was<br>
> derailed by the name confusion.<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464</a><br>
> <br>
> That thread contains a discussion between myself (who uses 0BSD in<br>
> toybox and got SPDX approval under the original name) and the person<br>
> who sent the license to OSI under a different name after SPDX had<br>
> already approved 0BSD.<br>
> <br>
> Unfortunately, due to the name confusion, Github took no action on the<br>
> request. Similarly wikipedia reproduces this confusion in its<br>
> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license</a> page.<br>
> There are multiple other examples of this negatively impacting the<br>
> adoption of the license.<br>
> <br>
> I copied my two contributions to the above github thread to my blog,<br>
> with slightly cleaned up formatting. They explain the issue at length:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="http://landley.net/notes-2017.html#26-03-2017" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/notes-2017.html#26-03-2017</a><br>
> <br>
> <a href="http://landley.net/notes-2017.html#27-03-2017" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/notes-2017.html#27-03-2017</a><br>
<br>
I applaud you for taking this very useful step, Rob, and appreciate<br>
Bruce having spoken to encourage OSI to certify 0BSD. FWIW, I heartily<br>
concur. This licence is clearly well drafted, non-duplicative, and so<br>
on.<br>
<br>
I'm actually about to revise my<br>
<a href="http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html</a> page,<br>
to strongly recommend 0BSD for anyone seeking maximally permissive<br>
licensing (It already says 'Rob Landley's BSD Zero Clause License<br>
[link] is also excellent if obscure', but I can do better than that.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Please pardon a bit of legal pedantry, but 0BSD is not 'equivalent to<br>
placing code in the public domain' (as you say on<br>
<a href="https://landley.net/toybox/license.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/toybox/license.html</a> and elsewhere). Copyright title <br>
continues to exist in the abstract ownable property in question from the<br>
date of creation to when copyright expires -- whereas the defining trait <br>
of actual PD is ownable title having expired or been expunged. You<br>
might feel that this distinction doesn't matter: We would all hope this<br>
is the case. The assurance third-party reusers have that they aren't<br>
committing copyright torts is that they're doing so in good-faith<br>
reliance on a copyright notice with permissions grant, knowing they're<br>
either inside the copyright runtime but exercising that grant or past<br>
the copyright runtime in which case the work is _truly_ public domain.<br>
<br>
And another reason this isn't equivalent to PD is that the legal<br>
obligation[1] to retain the copyright notice (e.g., the 'Copyright (C)<br>
2006 by Rob Landley <<a href="mailto:rob@landley.net" target="_blank">rob@landley.net</a>>' example on your toybox page)<br>
until copyright expires -- which for reasons mentioned above is for<br>
everyone's benefit. <br>
<br>
Yes, we get that coders would like to magick all of this hassle away --<br>
but wishing doesn't make it so. Your licence, CC0, MIT License, <br>
ISC License, and Fair License are IMO about the closest one can safely<br>
get that I've so far seen.<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] In the USA, covered by 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cheers, "I am a member of a civilization (IAAMOAC). Step back<br>
Rick Moen from anger. Study how awful our ancestors had it, yet<br>
<a href="mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com" target="_blank">rick@linuxmafia.com</a> they struggled to get you here. Repay them by appreciating<br>
McQ! (4x80) the civilization you inherited." -- David Brin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering<br>Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative<div>President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom Initiative.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>