[License-discuss] What would be necessary to consider the unlicense?

Clark C. Evans cce at clarkevans.com
Mon Feb 27 00:05:30 UTC 2012

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 03:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Defective efforts like 'Unlicense' are what happens when naive coders
> > attempt to create permissive licences, with results about as sad and
> > unfortunate as would be the case if typical coders were to attempt to
> > practice law.
> . . . and yet, the Unlicense is lengthier than (for instance) the ISC and
> MIT/X11 licenses, which are better written from a legal standpoint.
> That's because the Unlicense is trying to *do* more, and not just because
> it wasn't written by lawyers or with lawyers on tap to help tighten up
> the language for legal purposes.

I suggest that the Unlicense should be considered for OSI approval.

If it is a broken license, perhaps those with legal expertise might
provide suggestions to fix it?



More information about the License-discuss mailing list