If I'm not mistaken, MIT-0 would probably not be recommended for the same reasons that the unlicense is not. --Ryan
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:48 PM Tobie Langel <to...@unlockopen.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The MIT-0 license[1] is an MIT license with the attribution clause > removed. It has notably been used to license example and scaffolding code. > > It doesn’t look that it has been approved by the OSI. I couldn’t find it > on the licenses page[2]. > > I imagine that is has been discussed on license-review@ already, > unfortunately I couldn’t find a way to search the archives either. A > pointer would be very much appreciated. > > If this license hasn’t been rejected in the past, would there be a chance > for it to be accepted? It seems like it meets the OSD and fulfills a need > that’s hard to meet otherwise. > > If so, could I bring it to license-review@ myself given I’m neither a > lawyer nor the author of the license? > > Thanks all for your help, > > —tobie > > —- > [1] > https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT-0.html > [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > _______________________________________________ > 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
