Die 28. 11. 21 et hora 05:26 Luis Villa scripsit:

I think you really want (in this example) something like “GPL-2.0-or-later
OR CC-PDM-1.0”, which conveys the ambiguous nature of the assessment and
allows a policy engine to say “we trust upstream attempts to do
self-analysis of CC-PDM” or “hell no, our risk tolerance can’t accept the
vagaries of self-defined public domain and so we must fall back to the
other license”. Unfortunately, since part of what you’re after is brevity
and simplicity, and CC (not unwisely) sought precision, I don’t think the
actually text of CC-PDM gets you where you want to be even if it is
logically/legally the correct approach.

I was thinking in the same lines of a ($“pd” OR $license) solution.

It does make things more complicated than just $license, but if there is
actual need for it, it’s the solution I think makes sense.

As for any need for this, I have been involved in a use case where I was
explicitly asked to clarify to downstream whether the project license applies
to config files and had to send a written statement about it. I realise those
are edge cases though, so the solution should not be something that messes up
the standard way forward.


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: https://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: matija_suklje@...