[License-discuss] Another "crayon" license

[Gregor Pintar]

2013/11/10, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com>:
> It reads to me like an ultra-permissive license, almost a public domain
> dedication in the form of a license.
>
Yes, it's some kind of implicit public domain dedication.
It's shorter/simpler than CC0, but more "professional" than WTFPL.
Also CC0 fallback license is less permissive.

> It has a copyright notice, but it does not require keeping it. This is
> unexpected (for me); I'm not sure why it asserts copyright. It also
> states it allows to "relicence".
>
Do you think it would be better without "Copyright (C)" (with just name)?
Is "relicense" meaningful in law?

> Is it really intended to allow a full replacement/removal of license
> text and removal of copyright notice? It will have that effect...
>
Yes, this is intended.

> No-Warranty. The statement is much simpler than for MIT, BSD, ISC,
> Unlicense, CC0, CC-BY. Personally, I'd suggest not "crayon"-ing that
> paragraph. I'd think you don't want it to fail.
>
Hmm, it's less explicit, but it's still longer than zlib's.
Wouldn't "to the utmost extent", "any kind", "any way" and "any issue"
do the trick?