Oops, hit send by accident.  CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is a 
free software license (as judged by the FSF).

It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under 
one license and they are using CC0.  That’s not too uncommon in general and in 
this case, it makes even more sense given that shields appears to 
programmatically makes badges in svg.  I guess they want to be sure that all of 
the vectorized images that are in the repo are CC0 to try to avoid issues.  The 
line between code and art asset are blurrier for this project than most.

If it bothers you a lot then don’t contribute to the project but there doesn’t 
seem to be anything sinister about the request.

The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by your 
code.  Modifying the stock CC0 probably means they won’t use your code anyway 
so either comply with the request or not.  You aren’t obligated to contribute 
anything but neither are they obligated to change policy.

Regards,

Nigel

From: Nigel Tzeng <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source 
project CC0

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

Reply via email to