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

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 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 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 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 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 Tzeng, Nigel H.
It isn't extremely odd given the discussion about public domain right above it, because folks interested in open source are generally aware of Creative Commons and the fact that the FSF recommends the use of CC0 if you wish to release your work to the public domain: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/