On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800 Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: > Hey, all- > I was just looking at the FAQ entry on CC0, and two things jump out: > > 1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular > rejected license, and no others. I would recommend removing this > FAQ entry on that grounds.
I am inclined to agree. John Cowan has said that this is in fact a frequently asked question - is that the impression of anyone else? > Tangentially, as I pointed out earlier on > this list, we probably should maintain a list of rejected licenses, > and the reasons for their rejections, so that future license authors > (and license-review members!) can refer to those precedents in a > useful, non-mythological, manner. +1. Although: > 2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of > rejected licenses, CC0 was not rejected per se: it was withdrawn before the OSI board had an opportunity to vote on it. (How many licenses have been 'rejected' in any official sense?) > if it stays anywhere on the site, it should be > rewritten to make it neutral and historically accurate; it is neither > of those things right now. Any takers? If not, I'll get to it > eventually, but I'd love for someone else to tackle it. I am not sure there should be a specific FAQ entry on CC0. Maybe one unified question and answer on public domain dedications that notes the history around CC0. - Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss