CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not assurance it would pass.
Neither seems likely. Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval thing. From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, Aug 29, 2017, 11:25 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open > Source license for the purposes of open source release on > Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. > > The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL > compatible. > > CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release > is desired. > > You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter > much any more. Thank you Nigel! Given all that, can we PLEASE have a vote on approving CC0 as being Open Source, and add it to the approved list? Thanks, Cem Karan
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
