I think that we have more than enough licenses with these characteristics. From: License-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael R. Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Short permissive no attribution required open source license
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to [email protected]. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
