On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:43AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> As far as I can tell, OSI continues to be unaware that unlicense.org or
> creative commons zero even exist.
The OSI is aware of them. There's actually been interest for some time
in getting OSI approval of a license (or license-like instrument) in
this category, what I've recently been calling 'ultrapermissive'. CC0
was actually submitted by Creative Commons for OSI approval a few
years ago. The submission was withdrawn because of controversy over
clause 4a in CC0 ("No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived,
abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
document."). The Unlicense hasn't been submitted for approval.
I have now modified http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical to
include Zero Clause BSD License (0BSD) with a cross reference to the
Free Public License, and I have also added the following prefatory
text to http://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0:
"Note: There is a license that is identical to the Free Public License
1.0.0 called the Zero Clause BSD License. Apart from the name, the
only difference is that the Zero Clause BSD License has generally been
used with a copyright notice, while the Free Public License has
generally been used without a copyright notice."
Hopefully that will remove whatever possibility there was of anyone
thinking the Zero Clause BSD License (for those who choose to call it
that) is not now OSI-approved by virtue of the approval of the Free
Public License.
However I still recommend that the SPDX group come up with a short
identifier for the Free Public License that is different from "0BSD";
I'm going to pretend that it would be "FPL-1.0.0".
Richard
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
