[License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

[Ryan Birmingham]

If I'm not mistaken, MIT-0 would probably not be recommended for the same
reasons that the unlicense is not.
--Ryan


On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:48 PM Tobie Langel <tobie at unlockopen.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The MIT-0 license[1] is an MIT license with the attribution clause
> removed. It has notably been used to license example and scaffolding code.
>
> It doesn’t look that it has been approved by the OSI. I couldn’t find it
> on the licenses page[2].
>
> I imagine that is has been discussed on license-review@ already,
> unfortunately I couldn’t find a way to search the archives either. A
> pointer would be very much appreciated.
>
> If this license hasn’t been rejected in the past, would there be a chance
> for it to be accepted? It seems like it meets the OSD and fulfills a need
> that’s hard to meet otherwise.
>
> If so, could I bring it to license-review@ myself given I’m neither a
> lawyer nor the author of the license?
>
> Thanks all for your help,
>
> —tobie
>
> —-
> [1]
> https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT-0.html
> [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200422/e0ac6003/attachment.html>