search

Code-dot-mil / code.mil

An experiment in open source at the Department of Defense.
https://www.code.mil
MIT License
1.29k stars 127 forks source link

Implement CC0, fixes #37 #38

Closed fulldecent closed 7 years ago

fulldecent commented 7 years ago

This project CAN NOT use GPL, BSD, MIT and other licenses because those licenses require that you have ownership of the code, which you do not!

CC0 disclaims any ownership of code and is likely the only appropriate license for your situation.

tomberek commented 7 years ago

This project's purpose is precisely to discover if there is a means or mechanism to use those licenses. Just to be clear, we are not proposing this effort as DoD-wide policy, simply as another possibility. And it is still DRAFT, so keep the suggestions coming!

Our hesitation to simply use CC0 is best expressed by their own FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

Because our express desire to explore the re-use of other licenses, I am closing this PR unmerged. Feel free to reopen to discuss/respond.

konklone commented 7 years ago

@tomberek I know you know this, but for the benefit of other readers, the CC FAQ answer about software you linked to says something different about CC0:

Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.

That link to the CC0 FAQ entry says:

Yes, CC0 is suitable for dedicating your copyright and related rights in computer software to the public domain, to the fullest extent possible under law. Unlike CC licenses, which should not be used for software, CC0 is compatible with many software licenses, including the GPL.

It also mentions that the OSI has not approved it, due to patent concerns:

However, CC0 has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative and does not license or otherwise affect any patent rights you may have. You may want to consider using an approved OSI license that does so instead of CC0, such as GPL 3.0 or Apache 2.0.

Because of this, Creative Commons commented on the White House proposed source code policy, saying:

Thus, Creative Commons recommends that these government works should be released under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication, which waives any copyright that might apply, accompanied by a standard non-assertion pledge (nonassert) that indicates that the U.S. government will not to seek to enforce patent rights it may have against reusers of the software.

18F is considering adopting such a non-assertion pledge to clear up any issues over patents for avoidance of doubt. That said, in our almost 3 years using CC0, we've never had any issues come up relating to patents, which is why we haven't done anything about it to date.

But that's all to say that the only issue that OSI or CC have ever raised about applying CC0 to software is around patents, and there are clear ways to remove patents as a concern.

jbjonesjr commented 7 years ago

To add to the reading material, here is a discussion related to using the cc0 creative commons licenses for software: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/33 (Other issues in that repo are also a good read for cc0 info)

Background: GitHub manages an Open Source project (yes, we do Open Source too) that attempts to make it easier for developers to choose the proper Open Source License for their efforts (choosealicense.com). GitHub has decided not to include the cc0 in this list of suggested licenses, and the issue linked above is one of the discussions about it.

Personal opinion of @jbjonesjr, not my employer, friends, or dog: Licenses are hard. Software is hard. Naming may still be harder (as demonstrated by this repo :) ). However, providing a legal framework to empower the choice of a proper license (whether it be BSD, GLP, cc0, or WTFLP) should help the situation.

konklone commented 7 years ago

To add to the reading material, here is a discussion related to using the cc0 for software: github/choosealicense.com#33 ... GitHub has decided not to include the cc0 in this list of suggested licenses, and the issue linked above is one of the discussions about it.

@jbjonesjr That discussion thread doesn't discuss CC0 (it's mentioned tangentially a few times). The thread was about including CC licenses more generally. At the time the thread was opened, choosealicense.com did include CC0, but was replaced in this thread with Unlicense for the reason that Unlicense seemed simpler.

There is still a CC0 page on choosealicense.com: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc0-1.0/ since this pull request was merged.

fulldecent commented 7 years ago

A big distinction between GitHub recommendation and DoD use case is that GitHubs audience is people that have copyright to their own work. DoD does not have time to write off it's on works. Therefore githubs premise for excluding CC0 does not apply here.

jbjonesjr commented 7 years ago

@konklone You're right, good catch. I was navigating through multiple issues, and , and thought that was the root for some of the cc0 statements, but was not. I'm going to strikethrough my comment above to clarify.

That said, as @konklone mentions above, CAL "recommends" Unlicense for public domain software works, but the site does have details on cc0, and is linked to from under the Non-Software Licenses section.

@fulldecent

Therefore githubs premise for excluding CC0 does not apply here.

Of course. Just trying to provide more details and prior work and discussion on the licenses in question.