Hi Richard, On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use > CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. > I may be misunderstanding, but I had understood that the effect of the Copyright Act only affected the USA and that outside the USA the status of government works is not reliably determined. As such I would expect a license like CC0 to be necessary to give people outside the USA certainty as to their rights regarding government works. > > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes > this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. > I realise CC has resource constraints but I would love to see this revisited. Regards Simon
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
