3 ms·

It's not legally possible to dedicate your project to the public domain in many jurisdictions. That's why CC0 exists: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http:

by Flimm 13y ago

It's not legally possible to dedicate your project to the public domain in many jurisdictions. That's why CC0 exists: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

steveklabnik 13y ago
Note that there's some argument about the CC0's appropriateness for code; apparently the OSI's lawyers said it wasn't good, but now say it's okay, and the FSF's lawyers say it's not cool. I'd give you some links but I'm on my phone, and IANAL.
- justincormack 13y ago
  This FSF link says it is fine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 The OSI links are here http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero the issue is about the patent clause in the fallback.
  - cygx 13y ago
    See also https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081 https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Thank you!
- warp 13y ago
  The reason OSI didn't approve it is because CC0 does not grant you a patent license. So you if you use CC0 "licensed" code in your own projects, you are free to do anything with such code from a copyright perspective -- but the author of the CC0'ed code has explicitly not given you a patent license for that work.
- arto 13y ago
  As detailed on D.J. Bernstein's page at http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html, a lot of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about public domain software can be traced back to Lawrence Rosen's influential 2002 Linux Journal article "Why the Public Domain Isn't a License". (For those who may not know, Rosen is the former general counsel and secretary of OSI.) However, that article was incorrect on a number of issues, as Bernstein points out. And indeed, Rosen has last year at long last recanted his previous views on public domain software: > I have already voted +1 to approve the CC0 public domain dedication > and fallback license as OSD compliant. I admit that I have argued for > years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in > retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users > relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", > I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free > public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS > license that I trust more. Source: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-March/000345.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012... The "fire hose" Rosen mentions can be witnessed in action at e.g. GitHub, with volumes of code now being put into the public domain on an everyday basis: https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=...

by Flimm 13y ago

It's not legally possible to dedicate your project to the public domain in many jurisdictions. That's why CC0 exists: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

steveklabnik 13y ago

Note that there's some argument about the CC0's appropriateness for code; apparently the OSI's lawyers said it wasn't good, but now say it's okay, and the FSF's lawyers say it's not cool. I'd give you some links but I'm on my phone, and IANAL.

justincormack 13y ago
This FSF link says it is fine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 The OSI links are here http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero the issue is about the patent clause in the fallback.
- cygx 13y ago
  See also https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081 https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Thank you!
warp 13y ago
The reason OSI didn't approve it is because CC0 does not grant you a patent license. So you if you use CC0 "licensed" code in your own projects, you are free to do anything with such code from a copyright perspective -- but the author of the CC0'ed code has explicitly not given you a patent license for that work.
arto 13y ago
As detailed on D.J. Bernstein's page at http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html, a lot of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about public domain software can be traced back to Lawrence Rosen's influential 2002 Linux Journal article "Why the Public Domain Isn't a License". (For those who may not know, Rosen is the former general counsel and secretary of OSI.) However, that article was incorrect on a number of issues, as Bernstein points out. And indeed, Rosen has last year at long last recanted his previous views on public domain software: > I have already voted +1 to approve the CC0 public domain dedication > and fallback license as OSD compliant. I admit that I have argued for > years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in > retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users > relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", > I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free > public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS > license that I trust more. Source: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-March/000345.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012... The "fire hose" Rosen mentions can be witnessed in action at e.g. GitHub, with volumes of code now being put into the public domain on an everyday basis: https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=...