Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
It isn't extremely odd given the discussion about public domain right above it, because folks interested in open source are generally aware of Creative Commons and the fact that the FSF recommends the use of CC0 if you wish to release your work to the public domain: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 A year after the public handwringing on 4A the FSF still appears to recommend the use of CC0. The wording appears to me to be neutral, just mildly embarrassing for the OSI that it couldn't get it's act together to actually accept CC0 or reject CC0 or provide a useful alternative for folks wishing to do a public domain declaration. Instead it sat and dithered. What isn't neutral or historically accurate about it? From: Luis Villa l...@lu.ismailto:l...@lu.is Reply-To: License Discuss license-discuss@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:46 AM To: License Discuss license-discuss@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ 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. 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. 2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected licenses, 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. Thanks- Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
Luis Villa scripsit: 1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular rejected license, and no others. From what I understand, Questions are in fact Frequently Asked about it. There is no howling demand from the punters for explanations of the Sun Community Source License, the various Microsoft shared-source licenses, the University of Utah Public License, etc. -- Why yes, I'm ten percent Jewish on my manager's side. John Cowan --Connie Francis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:32:59 -0500 Tzeng, Nigel H. nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu wrote: The wording appears to me to be neutral, just mildly embarrassing for the OSI that it couldn't get it's act together to actually accept CC0 or reject CC0 or provide a useful alternative for folks wishing to do a public domain declaration. Instead it sat and dithered. I don't think couldn't get its act together and sat and dithered is fair. Existing processes for license certification were followed. The license steward withdrew the submission of CC0 for approval following a period of public debate (which I think lasted no more than a month or so). - Richard ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
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
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Richard Fontana wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800 Luis Villa l...@lu.is javascript:; 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? I'm not sure it is a question frequently asked of OSI, but the impression CC0 must be an OK open source license is common in my experience. 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. I don't favour a list of rejected licenses for just this reason, but I do favour a better rendition of our institutional memory so that people seeking the history of approval of licenses like CC0 or TrueCrypt can easily find the answer without needing to digest the full archives for the two licensing mailing lists. What's needed is an indexed activity catalogue for license approval at OSI. Perhaps we could raise a work group to prepare such a thing? S. -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Meshed Insights Ltd * *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): 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. 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. 2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected licenses, 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 think CC0 richly deserves coverage on obvious grounds of it being a frequent object of questions. Luis, there is a gaping logic gap between saying that the FAQ should not detail one single 'rejected' (actually withdrawn) licence and saying that coverage of CC0 should be removed from the FAQ. If you're saying the current FAQ entry comes across rather too much like merely detailing one withdrawn licence, then maybe it needs revision -- but I would say removing that item would obviously injure the core purpose of a FAQ. Can you detail what you mean when you say it is not 'neutral' and not 'historically accurate'? I can see where you might call it non-neutral in the wording of the introductory sentence: 'At this time, we do not recommend releasing software using the the CC0 public domain dedication.' Thus worded, I would speculate that this claim exceeds the facts, given that the Board does not advise anyone about what terms to apply to software, but merely either certifies licences or doesn't certify them. But in which particulars is it historically inaccurate? I ask not to challenge the characterisation but out of a wish to hear what you mean. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ
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. 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. 2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected licenses, 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. Thanks- Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
