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

[Buck Golemon]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 23/04/14 16:59, Buck Golemon wrote:
> >     and another
> >     package's license says "modified versions cannot contain additional
> >     attribution requirements."
>
> I don't know of any licenses which say that. Can you point me at an
> example?
>


I cannot. I don't have broad knowledge of license terms.

My question is: Is it possible to have an MIT-like license with no
requirements on derivative works?
(I'm referring to this clause: "The above copyright notice and this
permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.")

While I don't know whether the MIT requirements cause issues with any OSI
or other popular license, it's factual that there is a demand for an
absolutely-permissive open-source license, and until there is an OSI-vetted
solution, people will continue to use or invent other solutions (think of:
sqlite, cc0, unlicense, wtfpl).

The wtfpl, the unlicense and other public domain attributions are crayon
licenses, while the cc0 is too complex and not OSI-approved besides, so I
come here asking for help in making a simple yet legally sound license
which fills this demand.


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140428/a3725ef4/attachment.html>