[License-review] veto against Unlicense

[Josh Berkus]

On 5/17/20 3:57 PM, Langley, Stuart wrote:
> Unlicense falls on the side of "this is not a license" to me largely because I read the second paragraph as a description of what the author thinks public domain means, not a clear intent to convey rights.  If it becomes an OSI approved license, I still will advise against using software encumbered with the Unlicense.    

Huh.  It honestly hadn't occured to me to see it that way.  From a
developer perspective the unlicense is pretty clear.  If I was to fault
it on something, it's the fact that there's no requirement to include
the license on redistribution, making me wonder how effective the
warranty disclaimer is.

You're certainly correct that it doesn't contain the terms "grant" or
"permission" though.  Neither does the BSD license, though.

-- 
Josh Berkus