<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>The way I understand the argument being presented here, it is that the following statement in Unlicense:<br><br>“Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>means.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Cannot be construed as a backstop license, which is how CC0 deals with the concerns that in certain jurisdictions, dedications to the public domain are not recognized at all, or for at least of some of the author’s rights. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have yet to hear what it is about the above passage that precludes it from being a license, even though it is worded fairly similarly (and arguably more comprehensively) to the OSI-approved, and ubiquitously-used, BSD license:<br><br>“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would suggest that someone ought to present some foundation (legal decision, statutory limitation) for the assertion that Unlicense doesn’t include a backstop license grant if this debate about invalidity of bare public domain dedications is to continue (I think everyone acknowledges that a pure public domain dedication without a backstop is problematic).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pamela Chestek<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 15, 2020 6:33 AM<br><b>To:</b> license-review@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] veto against Unlicence<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The difference with the Unlicense is that it <i>also</i> clearly states what rights are granted. Does that not resolve any concern with the Unlicense?<br><br>Pam<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>