CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy.
https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com<mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
