Closed adrelanos closed 9 years ago
psivesely
commented
9 years ago I second this thought. In some countries, your statement that this work is in the public domain will not be recognized and it is necessary that you provide a clearer's license like the CC0 for others to have the ability to use it legally and to incorporate it into their own projects.
rustybird
commented
9 years ago This licensing stuff takes the energy right out of me... Sorry for taking so long to respond to the ticket.
On the one hand, distro lawyers really should experience at least some amount of pushback, because if an open-source package, hosted on GitHub, saying "this is public domain" isn't deemed safe enough, then they truly won't stop at anything.
On the other hand, I'd hate to burden packagers with successfully making that argument. So I'll probably just slap on an ISC license, which is concise, permissive, and mainstream. Sounds okay?
adrelanos
commented
9 years ago ISC review by FSF sounds okay okay, but not ideal: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ISC
CC0 seems closer to public domain: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
rustybird
commented
9 years ago I think the FSF confused itself here. They're referring to the license of pine, whose copyright holders later tried to interpret the "and" in "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software ... is hereby granted" as an XOR. But the current version of the ISC license addressed the concern by replacing "and" with "and/or". That's only "roughly the same language" in the sense that -x is roughly the same entity as +x on a textual level.
CC0 is interesting as a hack for those who really need it, but just look at all this garbage! And compare it to the Bugroff license... ;)
I suggest public domain CC0 1.0 Universal https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you wish, I'll send a pull request.