Yes, but that's because US Federal Government works generally don't have copyright attached within the US, so CC0 was the best option. That may not be the case here.
Thanks, Cem Karan --- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government. > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 1:39 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my > open source project CC0 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________________________________ > > > > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal > Source Code Policy. > > > > Caution-https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction > > Caution-https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md < > Caution-https://github.com/GSA/code-gov- > web/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > > > > > > From:License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of > Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> > Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM > To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source > project CC0 > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com < > Caution-mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of > mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. > > > > That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > > > > > > Caution-https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 < > Caution-https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge- > data/issues/28 > > > > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? > > > > There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively > licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away > attribution. > > > > > > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software > is CC0 licensed? > > > > If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d > be an issue. > > > > > > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. > > > > With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a > patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing > with a permissive is an option too. > > Cheers! > > Sean > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
