Hey, all- I was just looking at the FAQ entry on CC0, and two things jump out:
1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular rejected license, and no others. I would recommend removing this FAQ entry on that grounds. Tangentially, as I pointed out earlier on this list, we probably should maintain a list of rejected licenses, and the reasons for their rejections, so that future license authors (and license-review members!) can refer to those precedents in a useful, non-mythological, manner. 2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected licenses, if it stays anywhere on the site, it should be rewritten to make it neutral and historically accurate; it is neither of those things right now. Any takers? If not, I'll get to it eventually, but I'd love for someone else to tackle it. Thanks- Luis
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
