On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400 "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > > > So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU > > All-Permissive License[3]. > > > > We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people > > might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it > > basically stands for everything that we need the license on the > > Common Content files to stand for... Agreed, this is unfortunate. :) > > When we read the GNU "All-Permissive" License, it turned out to be > > not what it claims, since rather than being "all permissive", it > > requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is > > therefore as difficult as it is now. I think this is not a correct interpretation, as the mere fact that a license requires preservation of a licensing notice doesn't mean that it has a copyleft effect; this is well established in FOSS tradition as evidenced by BSD and MIT and Apache (etc.) licensing. Nevertheless, it is true that CC-0 requires no preservation of the CC-0 text; indeed it logically couldn't because in CC-0 the copyright holder is at least attempting to abandon all ability to enforce copyright on the work. No objection to CC-0 though, which in the end is probably no worse than and probably better than traditional simple public domain dedications. - RF _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
