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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
8 matches
Mail list logo