4 ms·

Why not CC0?

• cpburns2009 9y ago
  The Lil license seems to have a patent grant [1]: > Permission is hereby granted by the authors of this software, ... and including usage rights to any patents the authors may hold on it, ... And CC0 does not [2]: > No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. That appears to be the motivation of this over other existing, minimal licenses. [1]: http://lillicense.org/v1.html http://lillicense.org/v1.html [2]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/133/how-could-using-code-released-under-cc0-infringe-on-the-authors-patents https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/133/how-could...
• Flimm 9y ago
  Creative Commons advise users against using CC0 for code. CC0 also got caught in a technicality, causing it to never get approved or disapproved as an open source license by the OSI.
  • edflsafoiewq 9y ago
    Nevertheless, I've noticed CC0 used by crypto stuff lately (keccak, Argon2).
  • insertnickname 9y ago
    CC does not advise against using CC0 for software, only their regular CC licenses. See: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...