[License-review] Approval Request: Free Public License 1.0.0

[Richard Fontana]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:48:43AM +0000, Christian Bundy wrote:
> We (Fraction) would like to formally submit the Free Public License for OSI
> approval. The FPL is a permissive license designed to allow anyone do anything
> (except hold anyone liable).

The Free Public License 1.0.0 has been approved by the OSI Board.

In response to several comments from the license-review community
concerning the FPL, the OSI obtained outside legal counsel concerning
the legal and policy issues raised by 'ultra-permissive' licenses like
the FPL which do not impose conditions on the licensee (particularly
notice-preservation conditions).

Richard



> 
> 
>     Free Public License 1.0.0
> 
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
>     any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
> 
>     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
>     WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES
>     OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE
>     FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY
>     DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN
>     AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT
>     OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> 
> 
> Public domain dedications are attractive to anyone who needs something more
> permissive than traditional licenses like the MIT license, but they're 
> inherently problematic. Public license fallbacks in the CC0 and Unlicense were
> designed to solve this problem, but it seems like the best solution would be an
> ultimately permissive public license.
> 
> The FPL is a modified ISC license that removes both the copyright notice and
> the requirement that "...the above copyright notice and this permission notice
> appear in all copies." While there's only a small textual difference between
> the two licenses, removing the copyright notice and copyright requirement solve
> the problem of software public domain dedication.
> 
> There hasn't been any external legal review or legal analysis of the FPL, as
> the only changes were the two removals mentioned above. 
> 
> The FPL's license proliferation category would most likely be "Other/
> Miscellaneous"
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to review this license for approval.
> 
> Christian Bundy
> Fraction

> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review