4 ms·

Exactly, but I couldn’t figure of how it actually differs from CC0, despite apparent protestation to that effect: > The CC0 and various "do what you want" lice

Exactly, but I couldn’t figure of how it actually differs from CC0, despite apparent protestation to that effect: > The CC0 and various "do what you want" licenses and various public domain dedications may be less attractive to the initial developer for various reasons (i.e., a license is preferable to a public domain dedication). Maybe the difference is more a branding/tribal association than a legal one?

kijin 5y ago
CC0 is public domain. You waive all copyright (and even moral rights!) in a CC0-licensed work. MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. CC0 contains language that is more suitable for works of art than computer programs, and is intentionally vague regarding which rights are being waived because the use cases are so diverse. (What does it mean to "perform" or "communicate" a program?) Developers might prefer something a bit more precise. CC0 is long and complicated [1]. You probably don't want to put that in the header of a gist. [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. Except that it does. MIT-0 "only" waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice in that that is the change it makes compared to the MIT license. But the MIT license has already waived every other aspect of your copyright. You're not retaining any rights in an MIT-0 licensed work.
  - kijin 5y ago
    The MIT license doesn't waive any aspect of your copyright and/or moral rights. You still claim to have those rights, however diluted they might eventually become. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to grant some or all of those rights to other people. CC0 on the other hand goes like "I don't have those rights. Nobody does." It falls back to the rights-granting model only in jurisdictions that don't allow unilateral copyright-waiving. In practice, of course, the difference usually doesn't matter. In theory, though, there might be an edge case where it matters, perhaps in situations where the original author's moral rights are involved, or if someone discovers a novel use case for computer code that nobody had imagined before. (Am I allowed to bunch up your code into a virtual snowball and throw it at a virtual alien kid while cursing your name in Klingon?)

kijin 5y ago

CC0 is public domain. You waive all copyright (and even moral rights!) in a CC0-licensed work. MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. CC0 contains language that is more suitable for works of art than computer programs, and is intentionally vague regarding which rights are being waived because the use cases are so diverse. (What does it mean to "perform" or "communicate" a program?) Developers might prefer something a bit more precise. CC0 is long and complicated [1]. You probably don't want to put that in the header of a gist. [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. Except that it does. MIT-0 "only" waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice in that that is the change it makes compared to the MIT license. But the MIT license has already waived every other aspect of your copyright. You're not retaining any rights in an MIT-0 licensed work.
- kijin 5y ago
  The MIT license doesn't waive any aspect of your copyright and/or moral rights. You still claim to have those rights, however diluted they might eventually become. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to grant some or all of those rights to other people. CC0 on the other hand goes like "I don't have those rights. Nobody does." It falls back to the rights-granting model only in jurisdictions that don't allow unilateral copyright-waiving. In practice, of course, the difference usually doesn't matter. In theory, though, there might be an edge case where it matters, perhaps in situations where the original author's moral rights are involved, or if someone discovers a novel use case for computer code that nobody had imagined before. (Am I allowed to bunch up your code into a virtual snowball and throw it at a virtual alien kid while cursing your name in Klingon?)