Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal (aside: public domain licenses)

[Christian Grothoff]

I think it should be OK to put the SPDX marker for CC0 and write "in the
public domain (or CC0)" into the text. After all, we use this for very,
very trivial "code".  That said, I don't have a strong reason for going
for CC0 vs 0BSD here, it's just that you say FSF recommends CC0, which
is generally a good reason for me in the absence of a real argument ;-)

On 1/14/19 2:16 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Reading into general licenses we use, I found that simply stating "public 
> domain"
> is considered "controversial" enough for the FSF to recommend CC0 now. I have
> no strong preference over the presented alternatives (CC0, 0BSD, etc) but 
> would
> make files which are not just Makefiles state 0BSD. For myself 0BSD seems more
> appropriate for what we have and is more to the point, less "intimidating" for
> people who don't use license texts on a daily/regular basis.
> 
> Compare https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD 
> (https://tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license)
> with
> https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode 
> (https://tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-cc0-1.0-universal)
> 
> As neither Trademarks nor Patents apply for the files we put in the public 
> domain and our
> project, 0BSD seems better because it can be processed easier by humans 
> (which also
> relates to this thread intention).

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature