|That is exactly the plan. Bring in the donation as CC0 and then relicense under something permissive. |
On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Joshua R. Simmons <email@example.com> wrote:
Perhaps the OP can choose one of the seven OASIS selected licenses, accept the contribution under CC-0, then relicense it?
Ideally, the OP wouldn't need to bend over backwards this way for the contributor, but I understand these may be extinuating circumstances.
I'd still recommend the OP at least *try* to get the contributor to allow contribution under a different license.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, at 23:08, Jim Jagielski wrote:
FWIW, the FSF recommends CC0 for public domain
I remain +1.
On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Jim Jagielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <email@example.com> 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.
On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Carol Geyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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.
Chief Development Officer
Open Source and Standards Communities