Public-domain-equivalent license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Multiple image Public-domain-equivalent license are licenses that grant public-domain-like rights and/or act as waivers. They are used to make copyrighted works usable by anyone without conditions, while avoiding the complexities of attribution or license compatibility that occur with other licenses.

No permission or license is required for a work truly in the public domain, such as one with an expired copyright; such a work may be copied at will. Public domain equivalent licenses exist because some legal jurisdictionsTemplate:Which do not provide for authors to voluntarily place their work in the public domain, but do allow them to grant arbitrarily broad rights in the work to the public.[1]

The licensing process also allows authors, particularly software authors, the opportunity to explicitly deny any implied warranty that might give someone a basis for legal action against them. While there is no universally agreed-upon license, several licenses aim to grant the same rights that would apply to a work in the public domain.

Licenses

WTFPL

In 2000, the "Do What the Fuck You Want To Public License" (WTFPL) was released as a public-domain-equivalent license for software.[2] It is distinguished among software licenses by its informal style and lack of a warranty disclaimer. In 2016, according to Black Duck Software,Template:NoteTag the WTFPL was used by less than 1% of FOSS projects.

CC0

In 2009, Creative Commons released CC0, which was created for compatibility with jurisdictions where dedicating to public domain is problematic, such as continental Europe.Script error: No such module "Unsubst". This is achieved by a public-domain waiver statement and a fall-back all-permissive license, for cases where the waiver is not valid.[3][4] The Free Software Foundation[5][6] and the Open Knowledge Foundation approved CC0 as a recommended license to dedicate content to the public domain.[7][8] The FSF and the Open Source Initiative, however, do not recommend the usage of this license for software due to inclusion of a clause expressly stating it does not grant patent licenses.[6][9] In June 2016 an analysis of the Fedora Project's software packages placed CC0 as the 17th most popular license.Template:NoteTag

Unlicense

The Unlicense software license, published around 2010, offers a public-domain waiver text with a fall-back public-domain-like license, inspired by permissive licenses but without an attribution clause.[10][11] In 2015 GitHub reported that approximately 102,000 of their 5.1 million licensed projects, or 2%, use the Unlicense.Template:NoteTag

0BSD

The BSD Zero Clause License,[12] published in 2013,[13] removes half a sentence from the ISC license, leaving only an unconditional grant of rights and a warranty disclaimer.[14] It is listed by the Software Package Data Exchange as the Zero Clause BSD license, with the SPDX identifier 0BSD.[15] It was first used by Rob Landley in Toybox and is OSI-approved.

MIT-0

The MIT No Attribution License, a variation of the MIT License, was published in 2018 and has the identifier MIT-0 in the SPDX License List.[16]

Reception

In the free-software community, there has been some controversy over whether a public domain dedication constitutes a valid open-source license. In 2004, lawyer Lawrence Rosen argued in the essay "Why the public domain isn't a license" that software could not truly be given into public domain,[17] a position that faced opposition by Daniel J. Bernstein and others.[18] In 2012, Rosen changed his mind, accepted CC0 as an open-source license, and admitted that, contrary to his previous claims, copyright can be waived away.[19]

In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses and called it "the preferred method of releasing software in the public domain"[20][21] – the Foundation then reviewed its position specifically for softwares.

In February 2012, when the CC0 license was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval,[22] controversy arose over a clause which excluded any relevant patents held by the copyright holder from the scope of the license. This clause was added with scientific data in mind rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against software patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.[23][9] In July 2022, the Fedora Project deprecated CC0 for software code for the same reasons, but will still allow its use for non-code content.[24]

In June 2020, following a request for legacy approval, OSI formally recognized the Unlicense as an approved license meeting the OSD.[25]

Google does not allow its employees to contribute to projects under public domain equivalent licenses like the Unlicense and CC0, while allowing contributions to 0BSD licensed and US government PD projects.[26]

See also

Notes

Template:NoteFoot

References

Template:Reflist

  1. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named anonscm
  3. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named cc-blog-2009
  4. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CC0
  5. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named cc-blog-2011
  6. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named gnu-license-list
  7. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named opendefinition.org
  8. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named cc-blog-2013
  9. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ostatic
  11. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named unlicense
  12. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. ↑ Toybox GitHub commit
  14. ↑ Toybox is released under the following "zero clause" BSD license by Rob Landley
  15. ↑ BSD Zero Clause License
  16. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. ↑ Placing documents into the public domain by Daniel J. Bernstein on cr.yp.to: "Most rights can be voluntarily abandoned ('waived') by the owner of the rights. Legislators can go to extra effort to create rights that can't be abandoned, but usually they don't do this. In particular, you can voluntarily abandon your United States copyrights: 'It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960).'" (2004).
  19. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  20. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  24. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  26. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Public-domain-equivalent_license&oldid=3351478"