On 11/17/2009 05:15 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:

Hi,

Upstream of perl-Module-Signature has relicensed it from MIT to Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Since the "good licenses for software" list on the wiki doesn't explicitly mention CC0 I thought I'd ask here if it's OK to tag such as package as "Public Domain" or should there be a separate entry in the list for CC0?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Signature/lib/Module/Signature.pm#CC0_1.0...

Please Cc: me on any replies as I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal-list.

It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough public domain declaration. Use:

License: CC0

I've added it to the Good list for software and content (its good for anything, really, but it is most likely to be used in those areas). It is Free and GPL Compatible.

~spot

On 11/17/2009 02:01 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"TC" == Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:

TC> It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough TC> public domain declaration.

Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to people who live in countries where they cannot disclaim all of their rights? It looks like it doesn't with the "to the extent allowable by law" clause. If that's the case, should we recommend that folks use CC0 instead of simple public domain declarations when there have been issues with the latter? I know in the past folks have suggested "something like the WTFPL" for French citizens who wished to release code to the public domain but could not.

I'd still recommend that folks looking to to Public Domain declarations consider using a permissive license like MIT instead of abandoning their copyright entirely, but CC0 is significantly better than other public domain declarations.

~spot