[License-discuss] What would be necessary to consider the unlicense?
Clark C. Evans
cce at clarkevans.com
Mon Feb 27 01:50:27 UTC 2012
> I am having trouble finding a benefit that would come from fixing it,
> that we don't already have from short-and-sweet licenses like BSD.
So, what makes unlicense and these public domain statements alluring
is that they serve as vehicles for their authors make a statement about
public policy. The MIT/BSD simply don't make a public statement this
way, and hence, they don't have that sort of irresistable attraction.
I think what CC0 has taught us is that this same public policy vigor
should be directed towards intellectual property broadly, including
an abandonment of patent and database rights as well as copyright.
> What you would to be "as good as" BSD would be a public domain
> declaration coupled with a covebroanant not-to-sue that extends to the
> patent claims of the dedicator that are necessary to utilize the work
> as it was dedicated. And a warranty disclaimer to protect the donor.
> It ends up not being shorter nor simpler.
How short could it be though? I suggest we get a "github" or other
repository, put in some draft language, and hack at it. Perhaps we
could help the original authors of Unlicense produce a 2.0 version that
adds "we hate patents too!" feature that would be worth upgrading?
More information about the License-discuss