Kuno Woud wrote: > On 04/01/2014 10:44 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote: >> In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the >> effective portion of CC0 is presumably not the PD declaration but the >> permissive license. As other posters have noted, that permissive license is >> not perceptibly different in effect from MIT. > > MIT is OSI approved, CC0 is not. > > Which in itself may be important to some users. For example all projects > hosted on code.google.com are required by Google to use an OSI approved > license.
Hi, Kuno. A quick search of code.google.com for "public domain" gets 633 hits. So, maybe Google isn't exactly literal in its interpretation of OSI-approved? Interesting point, though. I'd speculate that if the embedded "public license fallback" inside CC0 is ever sent to OSI as a stand-alone license, it would be approved. It is mighty similar in effect to MIT/BSD/Apache, with the distinctive feature that it explicitly disclaims patent licensing, is clearly copyright-only, and therefore non-duplicative. Andy Wilson Intel open source technology center _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
