++1 On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the > non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work! /Larry > > > Lawrence Rosen > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 > Cell: 707-478-8932 > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain >> and CC0. >> >> (This seems appropriate for both license-discuss@ and license-review@, >> so >> I'm posting it in both places.) >> >> I've been seeing an increasing number of inquiries about the public >> domain and open source, and about CC0 and open source. A few of those >> inquiries have come here, but I'm also getting them elsewhere. >> >> So I've tried to formulate good answers: >> >> http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain >> http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero >> >> I hope I've reflected the general consensus of the License Review >> committee accurately, not made any legal mistakes, etc. I'd appreciate >> feedback on these. >> >> The "public domain" entry is complex. It felt wrong to simply say that >> PD is not open source, when it clearly exhibits most or all of the >> important properties of Open Source and is at least capable of meeting >> the OSD; on the other hand, it is not a license and therefore cannot be >> OSI-approved, and it has some portability problems. So I've tried to >> express all of that in the answer, and recommend that people use >> OSI-approved licenses wherever possible. >> >> The CC0 entry is more straightforward, but also would benefit from peer >> review. >> >> Please hold the flamethrowers, anyone who might be tempted to flame, >> and >> remember that these are inherently contentious and complicated >> subjects! >> It would be easier for the OSI to just say nothing on the topics :-), >> but silence on these questions would not serve our mission very well. >> >> Thanks, >> -Karl >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
