Re: [License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

2014-04-30 Thread Buck Golemon
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 23/04/14 16:59, Buck Golemon wrote: > > and another > > package's license says "modified versions cannot contain additional > > attribution requirements." > > I don't know o

Re: [License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

2014-04-24 Thread Buck Golemon
2014 5:41 AM, "Ben Tilly" wrote: > Why don't you feel that http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT meets this > need? > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Buck Golemon > wrote: > > Apologies for the previous message. > > I fat-fingered the send button bef

Re: [License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

2014-04-23 Thread Buck Golemon
Apologies for the previous message. I fat-fingered the send button before finishing my revision. --- There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense have attempted to fill, which is still not covered by any OSI approved license. Are any of you willing (and able) to attempt to fill this gap? I believe th

[License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

2014-04-23 Thread Buck Golemon
There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense have attempted to fill, which is still not covered by any OSI approved license. Are any of you willing (and able) to attempt to fill this gap? I believe the first step would be to agree on a (short!) list of minimum requirements. My own requirements: 1) T