Sorry. Final one. I promise. OSIs concern was patent provision. In this particular case, and with this particular OP, that is mute. The firm wishes to release as public domain specifically to revoke any and all claims, copyright and patent.
--
Jim Jagielski
Brief? Mobile
On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
ïFWIW, the FSF recommends CC0 for public domain
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense
I remain +1.
--
Jim Jagielski
Brief? Mobile
On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
ïOops. My mistake. I had thought that CC0 was approved. I must have been confused. In any case, since it is as close to public domain as you can get, you can consume it and relicense under something else.
--
Jim Jagielski
Brief? Mobile
On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
ïCC0 *is* an open source License, approved by OSI. Itâs as close to public domain as you can get. I have no issues with it being officially accepted by OASIS. In fact, our policy should be that any OSI license is OK. But I can see the advantage of keeping the list down to a manageable number.
--
Jim Jagielski
Brief? Mobile
On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Carol Geyer <> wrote:
ï
One of our current Open Projects needs to set up a repo under the CC-0 license, which is not one of the seven OASIS currently supports. (The OP wants to accept a major technical contribution from a large auditing firm which has a conflict-of-interest policy that requires them to only contribute under CC-0.)
Before we recommend to the OASIS Board that CC-0 be added, we wanted to see if Advisory Council members have any thoughts--pro or con--on CC-0.
This is very time-sensitive, so please let us know as soon as possible if you have any views on this.
Many thanks,
Carol
--
Carol Geyer
Chief Development Officer
Open Source and Standards Communities
OASIS
