[License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd.de
Thu Apr 23 18:02:06 UTC 2020

Josh Berkus dixit:

>I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it
>as "technically OSS but not really needed".  But if projects are using

Didn’t we have a… resolution, or so… that licences that are the
approved ones with only removal of restrictions (or changes to
things like author names) are automatically approved even if not
listed on the website?

I can see that applying here.

(I’m a bit wondering about how this works in practice, though.
There’s a disclaimer, but no requirement to keep it. For the
suggested use case, I’d say CC0 may be better, especially as
it’s not a work licence but licences the ability to licence
the work, so any recipient can licence the work under any OSI-
approved (or not, I guess) licence. Might be even better as
its disclaimer is attached to the licence to licence the work
(“to exercise Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights in the
Work”). And CC0 doesn’t even need to be specifically OSI-ap‐
proved for all this to work.)

I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt

More information about the License-discuss mailing list