Sorry, I now realize you were asking about the attribution requirement in materials accompanying binary distributions. Just use BSD stamped into each file & and include a waiver of the attribution requirements in the LICENSE file, or stamp zlib into each file (it is shorter than BSD in any case).
Again, IANAL, TINLA, etc. - Michael On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Michael R. Bernstein < [email protected]> wrote: > I doubt it. The BSD license text itself stamped into each file would seem > to fulfil the attribution requirement. If you are concerned about this for > some reason, you can simply make that explicit in the LICENSE file. > > IANAL, TINLA, etc. > > - Michael Bernstein > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Sagar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks! >> >> Do you think the community will be interested in a shorter license? >> Something that can be stamped on to each source file. >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Fleming <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The zlib license is OSI-approved and does not require attribution: >>> >>> http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Sagar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is there a short permissive OSI approved license that doesn't require >>>> attribution? >>>> >>>> The popular permissive open source licenses like MIT and BSD require >>>> attribution. It would be good to have a license where that is not required. >>>> There are many of us who are happy with attribution but don't want to >>>> legally enforce it. Here is an example of a popular library using public >>>> domain dedication with a fallback license: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_vorbis.c >>>> >>>> I propose a public domain dedication with a BSD-style fallback without >>>> the attribution requirement: >>>> >>>> "This software is in the public domain. Where that dedication is not >>>> recognized, redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with >>>> or without modification, are permitted. No warranty for any purpose >>>> is expressed or implied." >>>> >>>> Is the public domain dedication redundant? Will it suffice to just say >>>> "redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >>>> modification, are permitted" ? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Sagar >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
