[License-review] veto against Unlicence

[Thorsten Glaser]

Pamela Chestek dixit:

>There are lots of lawyers on the list; if any thought that the position
>had merit I would have expected that person to pipe up. Given that it's

That requires that the person has waded through those threads and read
all of the messages involved *and* invested time and effort to do so.
Absence of replies is not agreement.

>of logical arguments why it can't be true, I don't see paying someone as
>a good use of financial resources. We manage to sort out all the other
>legal tangles without paying a lawyer.

Yes, OSI has, in the past, rejected to certify licences with much less
questionable wording. Why now?

>Fedora considers it acceptable:
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

This is now https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836387

>The FSF finds it acceptable and compatible with the GNU GPL:
>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense

Bug filed as <Pine.BSM.4.64L.2005151839320.15202 at herc.mirbsd.org>

>I'm not jumping off a cliff because others have, but then they appear
>to have landed safely.

Or they just had an US-centric view or not thought about this.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
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