> Sford wiki > Sford CC0

CC0 is the Creative Commons designation for "Public Domain", the most permissive way of releasing content. It allows any usage for any reason without permission or restriction. For example, there is no attribution requirement. (Why does CC0 have a bunch of legalese? Because it has to.)

Why CC0

So, why would I do such a thing? Most permissive, open-source licenses at least require attribution. Why don't I want to get credit where it is due?

• I have benefited from the free and open availability of wonderful source code, and I want to give back.
• I want as few impediments as possible to the use of whatever I choose to give back. Even having an attribution requirement could complicate its usage.
• What good does credit do? If I want to demonstrate to somebody that I write good code, I can point them at my software archive.
• Wouldn't I want to be able to point to uptake of my software as a measure of my strength? Let's face it, there is such a huge population of technical blogs and source code out there that the chances of my software being discovered by any significant number of coders is close to zero. In fact, I could be cynical and say that having an attribution clause could almost be a negative - an empty search for cites could be construed as an implicit negative. Better to leave uptake a mystery and demand that my code be evaluated on its own merit.
• Most of my code isn't particular notable. It's certainly not commercially viable. If I were to come up with something revolutionary, I would probably try to publish it in a journal. For most of what I give back, asking for attribution feels a little like asking to have small donations to a charity be acknowledged with a fancy plaque.

Are there any counter-arguments?

Yes. Fans of copyleft feel that if you benefit from the labors of the open source community, then you should be encouraged to give back. I say 'encouraged' because nobody is forcing anybody to actually *use* copyleft content. You aren't being punished for not giving back. Rather, you are being rewarded for giving back by having the opportunity to benefit from the existing body of work. After all, the reasoning goes, why *not* release your derived work under copyleft, unless it's just simple greed? If you want to develop closed-source code, go ahead! Knock yourself out! Just don't use any copyleft code.

I think there are two concrete fears:

• There aren't enough noble-minded developers; without copyleft the open-source movement will become irrelevant and eventually fade away.
• Greedy companies will take open-source software, improve it, sell it, steal market share from the open-source versions, and render it irrelevant, resulting in it fading away.

I believe that these fears have been proven false. With a few notable exceptions (gcc, Linux), most open-source software is not under copyleft. There are plenty of examples of packages which have standard and deluxe forms, with the standard being open-source, and the deluxe being closed. (In many cases, the open-source version simply *lags* the closed version by some period of time, with improvements eventually being released open.) There are enough people who don't need deluxe; so long as the open-source version has value, it will have plenty of user base.

But what about fairness? Isn't it unfair for greedy people to benefit from open source, improve it, and sell it as closed source? Maybe. But how is that different from a chef who uses commonly-available ingredients to cook up his secret recipes for his restaurant? How is it different from an artist who uses "found" materials to create sculpture, and demand copyright protection of his work? Maybe it is no different. Maybe artists should be OK with copying of their work. Maybe chefs should reveal their secret recipes. Maybe the fundamental ethos of the copyleft movement is that it is better for society to allow unrestrictive use of all creative work. Copyleft advocates are not stupid -- they know full well that closed source software is a reality and is here to stay -- but they don't have to like it, and they certainly don't have to *aid* closed-source creators.

So maybe I do get it. Copyleft enthusiasts dislike closed-source developers, and refuse to help them. That's fine. As it happens, I don't dislike them. In fact, I make my living helping to maintain a closed-source system. So I don't mind helping fellow closed-source developers with the fruits of my open-source efforts. Hence, CC0.

That's why.