News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?. Parent comment

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by jcheng on Thursday March 18, 2021 @06:09PM (#26508065)
I would like a term that is inclusive of CC0.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by alexhutcheson on Thursday March 18, 2021 @08:29PM (#26509071)
Creative Commons licenses aren’t recommend for software[1], but you can use the Zero-Clause BSD License[2] to satisfy the same goals as CC0.

[1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...

[2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by detaro on Thursday March 18, 2021 @08:33PM (#26509089)
from [1]

> Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by GoblinSlayer on Friday March 19, 2021 @03:04AM (#26510709)
It's applicable to software, but it's not a good software license due to reservation of patent rights. CC was designed for scientific publications, in that context reservation of patent rights has an understandable meaning, but when applied to software it takes a very different unintended meaning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by alexhutcheson on Thursday March 18, 2021 @08:47PM (#26509167)
Ah didn’t realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by apotheon on Thursday March 18, 2021 @10:10PM (#26509585)
How about "copyfree"?

https://copyfree.org

https://copyfree.org/standard

(I also consider anything that fits the Open Source Definition to be "open source" and differentiate things actually approved by the OSI as "OSI certified", which should in principle be a subset of "open source".)

[ Parent | on HN ]