On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400
"Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
> So far we've looked at the WTFPL, CC0, and the so-called GNU
> All-Permissive License.
> 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
No objection to CC-0 though, which in the end is probably no worse than
and probably better than traditional simple public domain dedications.