Tobie Langel dixit:
>iirc, the problem with CC0 is that the author explicitly retains all
>patent rights (4a).
Right, and it doesn’t even grant a licence to use, except under
specifically limited to copyright law and neighbouring rights.
>Probably not a legal issue for such cases, but may
>well
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 20:03 Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> 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
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
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:09 AM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; Richard Fontana
>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
>
>
> I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we
On 4/22/20 7:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> It seems likely it would be approved, given the approval a few years
> ago of the similar, ISC-based license now known as Zero-Clause BSD,
> though perhaps some would object on anti-proliferation grounds.
Here is my non-proliferation question:
Is
(smiles)
JBC
> On Apr 22, 2020, at 19:33, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> people can have a strong authorial sort of interest even in minimalist
> reductions of the most textually minimalist open source licenses.
___
The opinions expressed in this email
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and great pointers.
Let me know, Mark, if I can help draft the proposal. I have zero experience
doing so, but at least it's fitting given the license name. :)
And please feel free to copy me on the submission. I'll be happy to add my
use case provided
FWIW I thought the zLib license was a good alternative for this use-case
(e.g. sample code that you expect people to use, modify and you don't want
to be attributed). But MIT-0 has the Warranty disclaimer. Seems better for
that reason.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
>From
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 08:28, McCoy Smith wrote:
> You might want to check with original author before you do that, e.g.,
> https://romanrm.net/mit-zero
> BSD0 is already approved: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
I hesitate to call them "the original author". Amazon independently
You might want to check with original author before you do that, e.g.,
https://romanrm.net/mit-zero
BSD0 is already approved: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Mark Atwood
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 7:52 PM
> To:
10 matches
Mail list logo
