<div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr">MIT requires preservation of copyright and license, which falls directly into the scenario outlined on Wikipedia:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility</a></p>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">Suppose a software package has a license that says, "</span><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px"><i>modified versions must </i>[preserve license and copyright notice]</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">" and another package's license says "</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">modified versions cannot contain additional attribution requirements</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">." Without direct permission from the copyright holder(s) for </span><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">at least</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px"> one of the two packages, it would be impossible to legally distribute a combination of the two because these specific license requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Thus, these two packages would be license-incompatible.</span></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I suppose the goal could be restated as: a license similar in spirit to MIT, but without the copyright and license requirements.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 23, 2014 5:41 AM, "Ben Tilly" <<a href="mailto:btilly@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=btilly@gmail.com&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">btilly@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why don't you feel that <a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT" target="_blank">http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT</a> meets this need?<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Buck Golemon <<a href="mailto:buck.2019@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=buck.2019@gmail.com&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">buck.2019@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>

> Apologies for the previous message.<br>
> I fat-fingered the send button before finishing my revision.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense have attempted to fill, which is<br>
> still not covered by any OSI approved license.<br>
> Are any of you willing (and able) to attempt to fill this gap?<br>
><br>
> I believe the first step would be to agree on a (short!) list of minimum<br>
> requirements.<br>
><br>
> My own requirements:<br>
><br>
> 1) The license should be understandable by myself and my fellow engineers.<br>
>    * This requires brevity.<br>
> 2) The license should have the absolute minimum of compatibility issues with<br>
> other OSI licenses.<br>
>    * The licensee would ideally have no requirements placed on them by the<br>
> license.<br>
> 3) Assure both the licensee and licensor against litigation by the other (to<br>
> the extent possible, of course).<br>
><br>
> It's entirely possible that 2) and 3) cannot both be accomplished by a<br>
> single license, but that's what I'm here to find out.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I'm trying to follow up on the suggested course of action in these posts:<br>
>  *<br>
> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000243.html" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000243.html</a><br>
>  *<br>
> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=License-discuss@opensource.org&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">License-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>

> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=License-discuss@opensource.org&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">License-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>

<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div>