[License-review] Proposal for OSI Approval track: Modified MIT License for Public Domain software

[Rick Moen]

Thomas, your licence purports to contribute covered software into the
public domain, but then purports to require recipients to accept the
"Releasors'" condition of there being no warranty.  But if it's public
domain, then the Releasors have no power to impose such a condition:
If your licence succeeds at its aim, they no longer have an ownership
interest.

Of course, commendably, your licence acknowledges that it might fail of
its primary aim (perhaps in some jurisdictions if not in others).  Like
CC0, you thus aim to have a fallback, what you term an 'agreement'.  But
the basis of that agreement is actually the Releasor's copyright
interest, which you tortuously avoid mentioning by name as if that made
it go away.  You cannot magick away copyright by avoiding the word.
Moreover, if developers wish to be protected against warranty
liabiility, their safety is best protected by clearly stating the basis
for requiring warranty waiver -- exactly what you are at pains to avoid
doing.

IMO, all you've done is slightly damage the text of MIT License, and 
putting at risk any developer adopting your variant.

-- 
Cheers,                       Do not believe you'll get the chance to choose.
Rick Moen                     Regret, by definition, comes too late;
rick at linuxmafia.com           Say what you mean.  Bear witness.  Iterate.
McQ! (4x80)                          Sonnet:  Against Entropy, John M. Ford