[License-discuss] Short permissive no attribution required open source license

[Michael R. Bernstein]

I doubt it. The BSD license text itself stamped into each file would seem
to fulfil the attribution requirement. If you are concerned about this for
some reason, you can simply make that explicit in the LICENSE file.

IANAL, TINLA, etc.

- Michael Bernstein

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Sagar <sagar.writeme at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> Do you think the community will be interested in a shorter license?
> Something that can be stamped on to each source file.
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Fleming <kevin+osi at kpfleming.us>
> wrote:
>
>> The zlib license is OSI-approved and does not require attribution:
>>
>> http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Sagar <sagar.writeme at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is there a short permissive OSI approved license that doesn't require
>>> attribution?
>>>
>>> The popular permissive open source licenses like MIT and BSD require
>>> attribution. It would be good to have a license where that is not required.
>>> There are many of us who are happy with attribution but don't want to
>>> legally enforce it. Here is an example of a popular library using public
>>> domain dedication with a fallback license:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_vorbis.c
>>>
>>> I propose a public domain dedication with a BSD-style fallback without
>>> the attribution requirement:
>>>
>>> "This software is in the public domain. Where that dedication is not
>>> recognized, redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
>>> or without modification, are permitted. No warranty for any purpose
>>> is expressed or implied."
>>>
>>> Is the public domain dedication redundant? Will it suffice to just say
>>> "redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>> modification, are permitted" ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sagar
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20151021/169c514d/attachment.html>