5 ms·

isn't it cc0?

• hannob 5y ago
  Not OSI approved.
• hsn915 5y ago
  The problem with CC0 is it's very wordy and very legaleeze, which means I don't want to bother trying to understand it, and potential users won't either. A one-line sentence should be more than enough to clarify my intent.
  • zarzavat 5y ago
    Public domain. Concise. Effective. Choose any two. The issue is that donating to the “public domain” isn’t a thing in many jurisdictions, so if you want a license that is effective everywhere then it needs to be wordy. If you are happy to retain copyright and other rights and simply want to grant other people a license to use you work then just use MIT.
    • mokus 5y ago
      I hear this a lot, but what jurisdictions and why? On the face of it, it seems batshit insane to me that there would be a place where I can’t waive my property rights on something.
      • agency 5y ago
        Germany, for one: (PDF warning) https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/cc0-analysis-kreuzer.pdf https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/cc0-analysis-kre... > With regard to the transferability and the waiving of the copyright the German copyright law can be considered as one of the strictest systems in the world. Main reason is the strict monistic approach the German copyright law bases on. Key feature of this approach is the concept that, in principle, the copyright/author’s right itself can neither be transferred to another person nor waived by the author herself. The German author’s right consists of two parts, the moral rights and the exploitation rights. The moral rights are – as a rule – personal rights that are bound to the person of the creator (or, after her death, her legal heirs), i.e. they can neither be transferred nor waived. Since moral and exploitation rights are considered as inseparable parts of the author’s right as a whole (monistic approach) the exploitation rights cannot – in principle – transferred or waived by contract as well. However it is naturally possible to license the use of the work i.e. to transfer rights to use a protected work even on a large scale. Such licenses can practically lead (nearly) to the same result as an assignment or waiver of rights.
      • wongarsu 5y ago
        Germany would be one example. Public Domain exists, but only as the state something enters after copyright expired naturally 70 years after the death of the author. You can't release things into public domain. As for why: nobody considered that case when writing our copyright laws, and nobody bothered to change it. Copyright as designed can't be transferred (except through inheritance), to avoid exploitation of the original creator. As a consequence you can't really get rid of it, you can only grant licenses. It's hardly the only right you can't get rid of, and CC0 tries to deal with some of them, like the right to one's one image which in the shortest possible form says that you can't create or publish a picture of a person without their consent (but as you can imagine is way more complicated than that). You could say that the German legal framework isn't about maximizing freedom, it's about maximizing happiness, and sometimes being able to give away a right or freedom will on balance cause more harm than good.
    • rectang 5y ago
      > Public domain. Concise. Effective. Choose any two. A workaround to the "concise" problem would be a commonly understood convention for indicating that a file is CC0 with a single line comment. The officially recommended boilerplate for CC0 is painfully cumbersome: 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... Something like this: // Available under http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 Come to think of it, it sure would be nice if "Available under [URL]" came to be a convention for FOSS licensing in general. I'm choosing "available" rather than "licensed" because it seems as though it would be generalizable to both copyright licenses and public domain dedications. (Caveat: though I'm fairly familiar with FOSS licensing for a layperson, I'm not a lawyer and so this would need to be reviewed by a lawyer to ensure for drafting soundness.)
    • ksec 5y ago
      >isn’t a thing in many jurisdictions I try to look this up and there isn't a concrete answer. There are countries with no or unclear Copyright terms, but I cant find countries with no public domain.
      • iudqnolq 5y ago
        One example is in Germany you can't give up all your rights (the sticky rights are often called "moral rights"). In that case you want to fallback to a permissive license.
  • rwmj 5y ago
    Trouble is no such sentence exists. There are countries (eg. France) where moral rights are inalienable. There are countries where you cannot put something into the public domain (Germany). Even countries where there isn't such a thing as the public domain. You end up needing to write something which is clearly a license, yet acts like the work is in the public domain, and make it watertight (nearly) worldwide. So you end up with CC0. Luckily you don't need to write anything very wordy to use CC0. It's actually pretty simple and short at your end. Creative Commons have already done the hard bit.
    • hsn915 5y ago
      > no such sentence exists What's wrong with 0BSD? https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted."
      • rwmj 5y ago
        Well you missed out the second paragraph is the first problem. Not being a lawyer I can only speculate on other problems. It doesn't get around the problem of moral rights, so probably doesn't work in France.
        • hsn915 5y ago
          The second paragraph is so common that you can safely skim/skip it without loss.