@roboneko >does it not get the job done?
Mostly, but not the whole way there, which is just sad.

It's like settling for 90% freedom instead of 100% freedom.

>please elaborate
"The laws of most jurisdictions throughout the world automatically confer
exclusive Copyright and Related Rights (defined below) upon the creator
and subsequent owner(s) (each and all, an "owner") of an original work of
authorship and/or a database (each, a "Work")."

Legally copyright is temporary - therefore it is impossible to own copyright, you can rather only hold it.

Extra-scummy lawyers and corporations a few decades ago started to refer to copyright holders as owner as a wonderful work of propaganda and repeating such propaganda is a big mistake.

Also, jurisdictions confer copyright onto the works of authors, not mythical "creator" deities (too bad businesses usually get their hands on the copyright and become the copyright holder in the end).

>... of course not? it is intended solely for assigning copyright to the public domain. messing with patents would be entirely outside of scope
If the intention was to solely to handle copyright, it wouldn't "go out of scope" by mentioning patents - but instead it explicit refuses to grant patent licenses; "a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document." (trademarks aren't a problem for software, as you can just trivially append not- to the front and any trademark issues vanish).

Unfortunately, patents can be used as a weapon to turn what would otherwise be source code in the public domain into proprietary software and the CC0 does nothing about this, therefore it's not suitable for software.

>they all too commonly believe that it refers to something proprietary which you don't have to pay for unless your intention is to make people very confused about licensing you ought to avoid that wording
Yes, most people have fallen for the proprietary tricks used in marketing, but if you drive the point home hard that free means freedom and has nothing to do with gratis, they get what you mean and don't make the same mistake again.

People do not and will not understand licensing correctly unless you explain it in the terms of freedom.


At least try to come up with actually insulting name calling.