[License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

Clark C. Evans cce at clarkevans.com
Sat Feb 25 14:40:22 UTC 2012

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 01:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
| Since "the OSI" doesn't write licenses, this will only happen
| if someone who does write licenses thinks it through with
| support from legal professionals and then submits it for
| approval.  I believe that's what Christopher has said  CC will
| do, just not straight away.

By developed by the OSI, I meant, on the license-discuss list
under public view and recorded so that anyone interested may 
participate.  I realise this isn't the same thing, of course.

I think a joint public domain dedication & fallback license 
would be broadly adopted if:

(a) is short and plainly written
(b) covers not just copyright but also patent
(c) is pseudonym friendly
(d) grants permission for others to acknowlege
(e) disclaims liability as much as possible

Being short and plainly written is important if such an
instrument would be used over the MIT.  In this regard the
CC0 is simply too long and will be less popular because of
its length & legal formality.

Explicitly granting/abandoning patents would fill the gap
in the MIT license and meet with the *intent* of GIFTs.  
It would also help explain why someone should use this 
instrument over other public domain statements.

Many people use pseudonym, so, if the instrument could be
friendly with regard to those (such as Why the Lucky Stiff)
it would even see more adoption.  Not that this is a problem
with current dedications or licenses, however, it is a core
requirement that I wouldn't want to see overlooked.

I've talked with many people about acknowledgments, and part
of the problem is that people are worried about including an
acknowlegement since they don't want to be violating trademark.
If the license has something that permits recognition but 
not implying endorcement, it'd help resolve this ambiguity.

I think disclaiming warranty is part and parcel to the whole
point/concept of a gift.  Something like this could be short
(or at the end yelling in all caps) then it'd also help.

In summary, an instrument that is succinct, covers patents as
well as copyrights, is both a dedication and fallback doesn't 
exist.  If it is created, I'd imagine many people will "cut over".

I'd certainly use it for a number of my works over the MIT, 
and would start to ask people who use the MIT to use it instead.
Having patent claims explicitly abandoned, or granted as a 
fallback, would really move the state of the art forward.



More information about the License-review mailing list