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

[Michael R. Bernstein]

Sorry, I now realize you were asking about the attribution requirement in
materials accompanying binary distributions. Just use BSD stamped into each
file & and include a waiver of the attribution requirements in the LICENSE
file, or stamp zlib into each file (it is shorter than BSD in any case).

Again, IANAL, TINLA, etc.

- Michael

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Michael R. Bernstein <
michael at fandomhome.com> wrote:

> 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/20151021/6816d41a/attachment.html>