Yes yes I know the public domain isn't a license :-)
Say that we want to write some software (code examples to go along with our LGPLv2+ library), and we want to basically give these examples away as much as possible without any strings attached for any use whatsoever (because the examples encourage people to adopt our library), and we also want to include these examples in a Fedora package, is there a preferred form of wording that we can put into the example files to express this?
Rich.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
Yes yes I know the public domain isn't a license :-)
Say that we want to write some software (code examples to go along with our LGPLv2+ library), and we want to basically give these examples away as much as possible without any strings attached for any use whatsoever (because the examples encourage people to adopt our library), and we also want to include these examples in a Fedora package, is there a preferred form of wording that we can put into the example files to express this?
Take a look at CC0. The intent of that license is to make a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where doing so makes sense, and to give the effect of a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where it does not:
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
The FAQ linked from that page contains some boilerplate text you can use in your files.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 12:37:27PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
Yes yes I know the public domain isn't a license :-)
Say that we want to write some software (code examples to go along with our LGPLv2+ library), and we want to basically give these examples away as much as possible without any strings attached for any use whatsoever (because the examples encourage people to adopt our library), and we also want to include these examples in a Fedora package, is there a preferred form of wording that we can put into the example files to express this?
Take a look at CC0. The intent of that license is to make a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where doing so makes sense, and to give the effect of a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where it does not:
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
The FAQ linked from that page contains some boilerplate text you can use in your files.
Thanks. I think you are right that this is the best license to use. CC0 is covered by the Fedora license list ("CC0").
My only worry is that the (very) slightly verbose legal verbiage might put people off - we really don't want anyone to stop and think if they can use this. But probably I can counter this with some explanatory text.
Rich.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:38 PM Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
Yes yes I know the public domain isn't a license :-)
Say that we want to write some software (code examples to go along with our LGPLv2+ library), and we want to basically give these examples away as much as possible without any strings attached for any use whatsoever (because the examples encourage people to adopt our library), and we also want to include these examples in a Fedora package, is there a preferred form of wording that we can put into the example files to express this?
Take a look at CC0. The intent of that license is to make a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where doing so makes sense, and to give the effect of a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where it does not:
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
The FAQ linked from that page contains some boilerplate text you can use in your files.
We no longer recommend use of CC0 for such purposes at Red Hat, or for software at all, because of its exclusion of a patent license grant (see CC0 4(a)). The issue of whether a free software/open source license can validly do so has recently become a significant open source policy issue.
If the MIT license is considered not permissive enough, you might wish to consider Zero-Clause BSD: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD.
Richard
On 26. 05. 19 23:21, Richard Fontana wrote:
We no longer recommend use of CC0 for such purposes at Red Hat, or for software at all, because of its exclusion of a patent license grant (see CC0 4(a)). The issue of whether a free software/open source license can validly do so has recently become a significant open source policy issue.
If the MIT license is considered not permissive enough, you might wish to consider Zero-Clause BSD: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD.
Tom, can we get this license added to the wiki?
-
Jerry James -
Miro Hrončok -
Richard Fontana -
Richard W.M. Jones