[License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Stephen Paul Weber (singpolyma at singpolyma.net):

> If you want to be open source and do not want to require
> attribution, why not consider <http://unlicense.org/> or similar?

Like most recent licences that aim to be more minimal than MIT/X11
License and Fair License (both OSI Certified, BTW), Unlicense suffers
fatal drafting errors, such that it should _not_ be recommended to
anyone.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000026.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000049.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000060.html

OTOH, Creative Commons CC0 is highly permissive and legally airtight
because it includes well-drafted permissive licence that applies in any
jurisdiction where its primary PD dedication clauses fail to have the
intended legal effect.  (On the gripping hand, this causes its full text
to be lengthy.)