(Whoops, looks like I didn’t finish sending this message from a fortnight ago!)
Thanks! For our specific case (a government body publishing open data in Australia), many of Baden’s reservations don’t seem to apply:
- “Moral rights”? When an organisation is jointly producing and sharing the data, they probably don’t apply?
- “Certainty”? Is there a concrete example here of usage rights under CC-0 being less certain than CC-BY in Australia? I don’t think CC-BY is particularly “certain” for many users, particularly around attribution requirements. (Licence experts may find it sufficiently “certain”, but not newbies.)
- “Limitation of liability” - this is something I’ll need to look at more closely.
- “attribution=null” - that sort of makes sense, but would be pretty weird and awkward to explain to end users (“Our data is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, except you don’t need to attribute us.”). I also can’t help but feel that that would lead to greater disrespect of the attribution requirements of other CC-BY data.
Another benefit of CC-0 is it’s compatible with OpenStreetMap, whereas CC-BY isn’t. (To be precise: a third party can’t take CC-BY data and import it into OSM, because OSM requires signing an agreement which gives the OSM Foundation the future possibility of relicensing the data, and that’s forbidden by CC-BY). The standard workaround is to make a public statement to the effect that we explicitly allow OSM to use our data in that way.