Quoting Stephen Paul Weber ([email protected]): > If you want to be open source and do not want to require > attribution, why not consider <http://unlicense.org/> or similar?
Like most recent licences that aim to be more minimal than MIT/X11 License and Fair License (both OSI Certified, BTW), Unlicense suffers fatal drafting errors, such that it should _not_ be recommended to anyone. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000026.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000049.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000060.html OTOH, Creative Commons CC0 is highly permissive and legally airtight because it includes well-drafted permissive licence that applies in any jurisdiction where its primary PD dedication clauses fail to have the intended legal effect. (On the gripping hand, this causes its full text to be lengthy.) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
