[License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-13 Thread Luis Villa
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 lis

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
y, November 14, 2013 12:46 AM To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread John Cowan
Luis Villa scripsit: >1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular >rejected license, and no others. >From what I understand, Questions are in fact Frequently Asked about it. There is no howling demand from the punters for explanations of the Sun Community Source L

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:32:59 -0500 "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: > The wording appears to me to be neutral, just mildly embarrassing for > the OSI that it couldn't get it's act together to actually accept CC0 > or reject CC0 or provide a useful alternative for folks wishing to do > a public domain dec

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Richard Fontana
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800 Luis Villa wrote: > 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Simon Phipps
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800 > Luis Villa > wrote: > > > 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): > 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. Tang

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

2013-11-14 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:49:40 -0800 Simon Phipps wrote: > I don't favour a list of "rejected licenses" for just this reason, > but I do favour a better rendition of our institutional memory so > that people seeking the history of approval of licenses like CC0 or > TrueCrypt can easily find the ans