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

[Buck Golemon]

MIT requires preservation of copyright and license, which falls directly
into the scenario outlined on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility

Suppose a software package has a license that says, "*modified versions
> must *[preserve license and copyright notice]" and another package's
> license says "modified versions cannot contain additional attribution
> requirements." Without direct permission from the copyright holder(s) for at
> least one of the two packages, it would be impossible to legally
> distribute a combination of the two because these specific license
> requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Thus, these two packages
> would be license-incompatible.


I suppose the goal could be restated as: a license similar in spirit to
MIT, but without the copyright and license requirements.



On Apr 23, 2014 5:41 AM, "Ben Tilly" <btilly at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140423/6e8d4bab/attachment.html>