> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus > > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other > > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) > > You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license > used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This > requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe. Perhaps you are right, but on the other hand it says "permission notice" and not only "notice". I wouldn't bet anything on it's actual meaning. However this issue is the easiest to overcome as I could just delete the sentence from my own version. > > * It is an enumerate style license, which means that > > - you might forget something > > - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying > > you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything i > s. > > - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, > > but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights > . > > > > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, > > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about > > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the > > same rights *as* public domain. > > First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not > accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain > software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a > thing does not exist, then I suggest reading > http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular > the part starting with "I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.".
Thanks for that link! This really is a nice approach. However: Is there no way to say in a legally binding way "everything" without having to enumerate it? Harald