[License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

[Ben Tilly]

Why don't you feel that http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT meets this need?

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Buck Golemon <buck.2019 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for the previous message.
> I fat-fingered the send button before finishing my revision.
>
> ---
> There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense have attempted to fill, which is
> still not covered by any OSI approved license.
> Are any of you willing (and able) to attempt to fill this gap?
>
> I believe the first step would be to agree on a (short!) list of minimum
> requirements.
>
> My own requirements:
>
> 1) The license should be understandable by myself and my fellow engineers.
>    * This requires brevity.
> 2) The license should have the absolute minimum of compatibility issues with
> other OSI licenses.
>    * The licensee would ideally have no requirements placed on them by the
> license.
> 3) Assure both the licensee and licensor against litigation by the other (to
> the extent possible, of course).
>
> It's entirely possible that 2) and 3) cannot both be accomplished by a
> single license, but that's what I'm here to find out.
>
>
>
> I'm trying to follow up on the suggested course of action in these posts:
>  *
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000243.html
>  *
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>