[License-review] veto against Unlicence
mccoy at lexpan.law
Thu May 14 14:35:57 UTC 2020
That's from MIT.
So your position is that BSD is not a license? Is there any legal authority for that position, in the jurisdictions that concern you?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:57 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-
> review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] veto against Unlicence
> McCoy Smith dixit:
> >Because if that’s true, MIT and BSD are also not licenses.
> Does “Permission is hereby granted” ring a bell?
> Russell Nelson dixit:
> >Perhaps we could suggest that the Unlicense contain a statement saying
> >"In France, the concept of moral rights prohibits me from giving up my
> >copyright in this work. Therefore, in France, this license gives you
> >co-ownership of the copyright."
> It’s not just France. Look at how CC0 did it, they got that right.
> When he found out that the m68k port was in a pretty bad shape, he did not,
> like many before him, shrug and move on; instead, he took it upon himself to
> start compiling things, just so he could compile his shell.
> How's that for dedication. -- Wouter, about my Debian/m68k revival
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-review