3 ms·

Of course, this is only public domain in some countries --- as the boilerplate says, public domain just doesn't exist in some places, which is why it's CC0 lice

Of course, this is only public domain in some countries --- as the boilerplate says, public domain just doesn't exist in some places, which is why it's CC0 licensed with a fallback license for when public domain won't work. Which means that there's a non-zero chance that distributing the code without the CC0 license attached might cause copyright problems in those places. In the FAQ they recommend that you treat the CC0 declaration as a license, with boilerplate at the top of each file and a COPYING file in the distribution: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ Should this be done for binaries as well as source? Beats me. Also note that the OSI haven't certified it, citing concerns with the patent clause: https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

shakna 10y ago
Including CC0 in accompanying documentation is less likely to frighten users than: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> ''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. And as the CC0 doesn't stringently demand to be included with the software, I can be sure that including it within the standard literature for clients, or even amongst the spec sheets, is acceptable. Copyright has made public domain painful, but CC0 is as close as we can get right now, (that I know of).

shakna 10y ago

Including CC0 in accompanying documentation is less likely to frighten users than: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> ''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. And as the CC0 doesn't stringently demand to be included with the software, I can be sure that including it within the standard literature for clients, or even amongst the spec sheets, is acceptable. Copyright has made public domain painful, but CC0 is as close as we can get right now, (that I know of).