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 the Open Source Program Office <https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - -> Verizon Media On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:44 AM Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote: > 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 > "invented" MIT-0, and I didnt discover that prior one until I did the > searches for adding MIT-0 to the SPDX list. It's an obvious modification > to the license. > > In fact, Ill start now. Drafting proposal... > > ..m > > > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
