Josh Berkus dixit: >I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it >as "technically OSS but not really needed". But if projects are using
Didn’t we have a… resolution, or so… that licences that are the approved ones with only removal of restrictions (or changes to things like author names) are automatically approved even if not listed on the website? I can see that applying here. (I’m a bit wondering about how this works in practice, though. There’s a disclaimer, but no requirement to keep it. For the suggested use case, I’d say CC0 may be better, especially as it’s not a work licence but licences the ability to licence the work, so any recipient can licence the work under any OSI- approved (or not, I guess) licence. Might be even better as its disclaimer is attached to the licence to licence the work (“to exercise Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights in the Work”). And CC0 doesn’t even need to be specifically OSI-ap‐ proved for all this to work.) bye, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
