There is still quite some amount of hubris in this.
If A writes software under L0 and gives it to B and is “nice enough” to allow B to use it privately for free, there’s some entitlement to the software.,
You’re overlooking that, in a contemporary environment, you’re standing on the shoulders of the giants (and all the small ones) who came before you. It’s absolutely presumptuous to write code in our time and not publish it under an OSS licence.
When my employer turned off the company-internal Jabber server in favour of, out of all things, Hipchat, I moved my team mates to IRC. (They also seem to all know at least some vi, even the trainee.)
Sorry about that, I was more concerned with getting the explanation into more than 140 chars and out to both people and GitHub and getting in touch with GitHub than with writing a lengthy article.
And all this besides $dayjob which suffered on the day, so I’ll probably need to work the weekend to catch up.
Be that as it may, without an extended analysis of the possible multiple interpretations and conflicts with copyleft, it leaves the author looking somewhat shrill.
I am the author. And I am not an academic interested in bringing out a lengthy article with explaining the interpretations and all.
I am, in this instance, pragmatic: explaining what’s bad, why it’s bad, what we need to do right now, and that’s it, and now I’m trying to work on a solution with the GitHub people.
If this is not enough, do your own research. In my referrers, there have popped up some Russian sites that (according to Google Translate) did some of their own research (and came to similar conclusions). Ex-Debian’s joeyh did, too.
As far as I can tell this is simply false. At https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ there is a list of "retired" (deprecated) legal tools, which does include a "Public Domain Dedication and Certification" but in the right column says "Replaced by two separate tools: the CC0 Public Domain Dedication and the Public Domain Mark." Furthermore, at the top of the page it says "CC will no longer offer these licenses via its license chooser or other mechanism for any future work" and if you click on the link (https://creativecommons.org/choose/) there is a "Want public domain instead?" link to https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ which prominently features the CC0 dedication.
I actually read through the OSI mailing list thread about the CC0 dedication once, and as far as I recall the OSI people (I think it was Bruce Perens) had reservations and eventually the CC side decided it wasn't worth pursuing, see https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero for the OSI summary.
If A writes software under L0 and gives it to B and is “nice enough” to allow B to use it privately for free, there’s some entitlement to the software.,
You’re overlooking that, in a contemporary environment, you’re standing on the shoulders of the giants (and all the small ones) who came before you. It’s absolutely presumptuous to write code in our time and not publish it under an OSS licence.