> Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You
can see these in the texts that are used at
https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.
Re: the "Public Domain Mark”, to retrieve the “matching text” you start from here:
Unfortunately, what they’ve chosen to do is to “auto-fill” the matching text. So what happens is that you get the matching text by retrieving this URL with various
fields filled in:
So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continue
ends up being displayed as:
This work (WORK_NAME, by
AUTHOR_NAME), identified by
INDIVIDUAL_NAME, is free of known copyright restrictions.
While just retrieving
This work is free of known copyright restrictions.
It’s pretty obvious how this works. I suspect the Creative Commons folks would be happy to reveal the full template, they probably have just never been asked.
From: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:57 AM
Cc: Max Mehl <max.mehl@...>; michael.kaelbling@...; Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...>
Subject: Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material
Hi Michael, David and Max,
Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:
michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
> Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
> and markers. Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
> how to tag them. "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate. "NONE"
> does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
> same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object. It
> seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
>Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
> * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
> * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
> of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
> The full FAQ item on this issue:
As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world."
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.
Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain:
This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it
is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification"
https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.
--- David A. Wheeler
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation