[License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
Stuart.Langley at disney.com
Fri Apr 24 16:44:23 UTC 2020
Is that para. 2 language so clearly a license? Without the verb "grant" it could be read as a statement of how the "licensor" views the effect of the dedication in para. 3. Separately, if the rights have been effectively dedicated to the public domain, there are no more rights to grant by action of para. 3.
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of mccoy at lexpan.law
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:50 AM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
>The second paragraph of Unlicense is a license, at least as much of a license as BSD or >MIT has (or, for that matter, the back up license in CC0):
>"Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, >either in source code form or as a compiled
>binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means."
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
More information about the License-discuss