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:
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
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
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
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
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.
6 matches
Mail list logo
