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

[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 list, we
   probably should maintain a list of rejected licenses, and the reasons for
   their rejections, so that future license authors (and license-review
   members!) can refer to those precedents in a useful, non-mythological,
   manner.
   2. Whether the CC0 entry stays in the FAQ or moves to a list of rejected
   licenses, if it stays anywhere on the site, it should be rewritten to make
   it neutral and historically accurate; it is neither of those things right
   now. Any takers? If not, I'll get to it eventually, but I'd love for
   someone else to tackle it.

Thanks-
Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion

[Luis Villa]

Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this?


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Luis Villa  wrote:

> That seems like a reasonable addition to me, and addresses real, recent
> confusion.
>
> Karl and Richard are on planes today, and I would like to hear their
> thoughts before taking it live, though.
>
> Thanks, Engel!
> Luis
> On Nov 10, 2013 10:38 AM, "Engel Nyst"  wrote:
>
>> Hello license-discuss,
>>
>> I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question
>> What is "free software" and is it the same as "open source"?
>>
>> The text currently says:
>> > One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term
>> > "open source" was the ambiguity of the English word "free", which can
>> > refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was
>> > also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term
>> > (see "What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?", and similar language on the
>> > marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site).
>>
>> At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on
>> the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft...
>>
>> > On the other hand, the term "open" applied to the source is sometimes
>> > used in the sense of merely "provided" or "visible", but the open
>> > source definition sets the criteria for "open source" to software
>> > licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable
>> > rights to every recipient.
>>
>> The text should then probably skip "furthermore", and continue...
>>
>> > The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom
>> > when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point
>> > definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice,
>> > but use superficially different language to get there.
>>
>> I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings.
>> ___
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss