OSI says public domain licenses are not OSI-approved http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution https://opensource.org/faq commercial purpose http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution https://opensource.org/faq#commercial commercial purpose page themselves How to apply license FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org is against explicitly including “evil” things FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org Source commercial purpose FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org sell FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero this FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org Look over the most common questions we get... http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution this copyleft FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq#commercial the following approval of CC0 at OSI was abandoned more aligned and nuanced views http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org https://opensource.org/faq page Source part of OSI’s official FAQ their founders coined the term themselves public domain licenses are not OSI-approved https://opensource.org/faq FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org opensource.org/faq#public-domain permissive1 FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org themselves https://opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq#permissive FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org opensource.org commercial purpose opensource.org/faq#unlisted-licenses http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution history http://opensource.org/faq#osd opensource.org FAQ permissive themselves https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#copyleft public domain licenses are not OSI-approved opensource.org/faq#cc-zero opensource.org http://opensource.org/faq#commercial opensource.org FAQ OSI has to say on this very topic OSI says does not recommend its use as an OSS license FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org states does not recommend its use as an OSS license FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org Another FAQ FAQ their FAQ about it http://opensource.org/faq FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org part of OSI’s official FAQ FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org history OSI has to say on this very topic website usable in all jurisdictions according to OSI’s FAQ https://opensource.org/faq OSI FAQ http://opensource.org/faq#unli... public domain licenses are not OSI-approved FAQ distributing opensource.org/faq#unlicense permissive according to OSI’s FAQ http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution is against https://opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq this page https://opensource.org/faq http://opensource.org/faq http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution OSI FAQ https://opensource.org/faq#copyleft "Frequently Answered Questions" OSI has to say on this very topic https://opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq OSI FAQ http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution public domain licenses are not OSI-approved http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution FAQ copyleft licenses2 the copyleft entry software freedom over ethical concerns public domain licenses are not OSI-approved free-software http://opensource.org/faq 開放原始碼 FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org https://opensource.org/faq#commercial OSI FAQ OSI FAQ part of OSI’s official FAQ Another FAQ FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org первоисточнике a FAQ entry OSI FAQ https://opensource.org/faq#permissive permissive ããããè³ªå opensource.org/faq#public-domain commercial purpose geen goed idee http://opensource.org/faq#commercial FAQ https://opensource.org/faq#commercial https://opensource.org/faq#commercial https://opensource.org/faq#which-license commercial purpose FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org was withdrawn opensource.org/faq#public-domain OSI’s official FAQ does not recommend its use as an OSS license FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org commercial purpose https://opensource.org/faq commercial purpose mentions three organizations OSI FAQ mentions three organizations not approved by the OSI a woefully inadequate credo OSI has to say on this very topic FAQ public domain licenses are not OSI-approved public domain licenses are not OSI-approved https://opensource.org/faq FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org the FAQ opensource.org/faq#cc-zero public domain licenses are not OSI-approved FAQ public domain licenses are not OSI-approved OSI FAQ "Frequently Answered Questions" 開放原始碼 review http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution a FAQ entry was withdrawn opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq#commercial FAQ on contributor agreements on opensource.org their founders coined the term opensource.org/faq#unlicense https://opensource.org/faq http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution this page sold http://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution permissive public domain licenses are not OSI-approved