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

[Radcliffe, Mark]

I think that we have more than enough licenses with these characteristics.

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Michael R. Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:27 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Short permissive no attribution required open source license

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20151021/2d3ef1a5/attachment.html>