2013/11/10, Engel Nyst <[email protected]>: > It reads to me like an ultra-permissive license, almost a public domain > dedication in the form of a license. > Yes, it's some kind of implicit public domain dedication. It's shorter/simpler than CC0, but more "professional" than WTFPL. Also CC0 fallback license is less permissive.
> It has a copyright notice, but it does not require keeping it. This is > unexpected (for me); I'm not sure why it asserts copyright. It also > states it allows to "relicence". > Do you think it would be better without "Copyright (C)" (with just name)? Is "relicense" meaningful in law? > Is it really intended to allow a full replacement/removal of license > text and removal of copyright notice? It will have that effect... > Yes, this is intended. > No-Warranty. The statement is much simpler than for MIT, BSD, ISC, > Unlicense, CC0, CC-BY. Personally, I'd suggest not "crayon"-ing that > paragraph. I'd think you don't want it to fail. > Hmm, it's less explicit, but it's still longer than zlib's. Wouldn't "to the utmost extent", "any kind", "any way" and "any issue" do the trick? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
