[License-review] veto against Unlicence

Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd.de
Sun May 10 21:20:12 UTC 2020

Pamela Chestek dixit:

> the intent of the grantor is very clear.

It is very much not clear, and we have rejected licences with
less ambiguous reading.

> For this document to not meet the definition of "open source,"

No, it does not meet the definition of “licence”.

> a court would

As I already wrote, it is not just about what a court would think,
it’s just as much about promising to my (as a distributor) down‐
streams that the stuff I take from upstream is under a good licence.

This one is clearly not good and almost certainly not a licence
(consider the name as well!).

11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing

More information about the License-review mailing list