[License-discuss] Another "crayon" license

Gregor Pintar grpintar at gmail.com
Sun Nov 10 15:53:52 UTC 2013

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?

More information about the License-discuss mailing list