[License-review] veto against Unlicense

[Langley, Stuart]

Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> 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.

[STL] I think your perspective is important.  What developers intend when they use the license is important. 


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

[STL] 
Every time I see this statement I go back and look at BSD.  BSD clearly has "are permitted" language.