On 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have >correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of the >licence but rather suggestions for its revision, which he said (in his >note on Feb. 24, 2012 withdrawing the application) CC would consider >when the organisation has time. _He_ understood this, even though some >people on this mailing list today appear not to have. He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already recommends CC0 even WITH the patent statement. You came to us, not us to you². Christopher was exceedingly polite during that discussion and CC has also been publicly polite in general to the OSI. My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. The situation was immensely silly and damaging to the OSI. If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for approval in 2013. If you don¹t consider it was damaging then consider this: the White House has told government agencies that "Thou Shall Open Source 20% of Your Software Portfolio² and their first example was their own code.gov site released under CC0*. So the idea that ³it¹s not really open source unless OSI approved² took a major hit because either the folks promoting Open Source at the highest level of government don¹t know who the OSI is or they simply don¹t care. * After going back and looking the eRegulations project from the CFPB that was cited as an example in the Federal Source Code Policy Memorandum is also CC0. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
