[License-review] veto against Unlicence

[Thorsten Glaser]

McCoy Smith dixit:

>That's from MIT.
>So your position is that BSD is not a license?

No, but you’re trying to distract and putting words into my mouth
that are untrue, knowingly. I don’t have to put a counter-example
to every example you do. Please revert to constructive discussion
on this.

OK, let’s compare Unlicense…

│This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
│
│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
│means.
[…]
│of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
│software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
[…]

… with BSD:

│Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modif-
│ication, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
[…]

① BSD starts off with the grant and combines it with conditions, which
  is common for licences.

② Unlicense starts off with a PD statement/dedication and then follows
  with a sentence explaining to the unknowing what they think this means.

③ Unlicense, later, contains a PD dedication without fallback licence,
  making it clear that this is not a grant under copyright law.


I’d like to forward another mail from l-d where someone else agrees:

| From: "Langley, Stuart" <Stuart.Langley at disney.com>
| Message-ID: <CY4PR03MB2760A3B54FAA2D3D3A2A559DF6D00 at CY4PR03MB2760.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
|
| Is that para. 2 language so clearly a license?  Without the verb
| "grant" it could be read as a statement of how the "licensor" views
| the effect of the dedication in para. 3. Separately, if the rights
| have been effectively dedicated to the public domain, there are no
| more rights to grant by action of para. 3.
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of mccoy at lexpan.law
|
| >The second paragraph of Unlicense is a license, at least as much of a
| >license as BSD or >MIT has (or, for that matter, the back up license
| >in CC0):
|
| >"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 means."

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
This space for rent.

https://paypal.me/mirabilos to support my work.