> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of Josh Berkus > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:09 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; Richard Fontana > <rfont...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0 > > > I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it as "technically OSS but not really needed".
Is that a reason for denial that has been used in the past? At a minimum, I'd think the argument for MIT-0 against that rationale is that it eliminates the perceived-by-some-as unwieldy license and notice requirements of plain-old MIT, while retaining all the other features of MIT. In fact, I'd venture to guess that at some point someone will argue that those sorts of obligations ought to be eliminated or allowed to be streamlined. _______________________________________________ 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
