[License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Thu Apr 23 17:56:27 UTC 2020

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:09 AM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org; Richard Fontana
> <rfontana at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
> I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it as
"technically OSS but not really needed".  

Is that a reason for denial that has been used in the past? At a minimum,
I'd think the argument for MIT-0 against that rationale is that it
eliminates the perceived-by-some-as unwieldy license and notice requirements
of plain-old MIT, while retaining all the other features of MIT.  In fact,
I'd venture to guess that at some point someone will argue that those sorts
of obligations ought to be eliminated or allowed to be streamlined.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list