@mlinksva Many thanks for the update. I feel quite relieved that the material is available. My views are somewhat shaped by trying to obtain the legal analysis underpinning the recently released Linux Foundation CDLA‑Permissive‑2.0 license. All I have to work off is their media release:
- Linux Foundation (22 June 2021). Enabling easier collaboration on open data for AI and ML with CDLA-Permissive-2.0 — Press release. Linux Foundation.
Many of the statements in that media release are either really vague or open to challenge. Proper legal analysis does exist, for instance IBM gave private presentations on the new license. But my efforts to obtain that information have so far not led anywhere. There is not much interest in servicing those at the bottom of the food chain, it would seem. But I will keep trying.
For the record, the CDLA‑Permissive‑2.0 is not a license agreement under US law, it is a public license. And I have my doubts if the license will enable easier collaboration — instead it may well suck data of the CC‑BY‑4.0 realm and prevent modifications from being shipped back. That is why I am so keen to see the legal analysis the Linux Foundation possesses in order to understand what issues are being addressed that the CC0‑1.0 and CC‑BY‑4.0 waivers/licenses cannot serve.
On reflection, it don’t think CDLA‑Permissive‑2.0 will get much traction in Europe in any case. But the Linux Foundation push it at every opportunity. If anyone from the Linux Foundation reads this posting, could they get in contact please. That would be very much appreciated. Or alternatively and better still, just post a link the legal analysis.