> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 3:44 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; license-
> rev...@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] veto against Unlicence (was Re: Certifying MIT-
> 0)
> |Any
Hi Tom,
>Ignoring the legal morass of complexity that is the Public Domain, do you
>honestly think there is any practical risk from honoring an extreme
>permissive license where the copyright holder effectively says "I disclaim
[…]
>I just don't see the copyright holder having any ground to stand
mc...@lexpan.law dixit:
>The second paragraph of Unlicense is a license, at least as much of a
It’s not:
|This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
This is a voluntary relinquishing of copyright protection done by the
authors. (Whether this is valid in the country
How about the mashup at
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/rewrite_for_2.0/LICENSE.txt
? Would that work in all parts of the EU?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
1 (301) 394-0667
1 (240) 309-5216
From: License-discuss
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>The Unlicense has been submitted to License-Review and the review is
>pending. If you have objections to it, then you should raise them there.
Erk… thanks for the heads-up. I’ll have to forward my mail there then.
>No one has mentioned any way in which it doesn't meet the
> April 24, 2020 7:41 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote:
>
> “Unlicense” is a PD dedication, not a licence, and therefore
> not portable to at least a good part of the EU, unusable both
> for consumers and creators. I have to treat stuff under the
> “Unlicense” as proprietary unlicenced unusable crap.
Ignoring the legal morass of complexity that is the Public Domain, do you
honestly think there is any practical risk from honoring an extreme
permissive license where the copyright holder effectively says "I disclaim
this and invite you to do whatever you want with it". I could see a
possible conce
Ryan Birmingham dixit:
>reasons that the unlicense is not.
“Unlicense” is a PD dedication, not a licence, and therefore
not portable to at least a good part of the EU, unusable both
for consumers and creators. I have to treat stuff under the
“Unlicense” as proprietary unlicenced unusable crap.
(
On 4/22/2020 10:02 PM, Ryan Birmingham wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, MIT-0 would probably not be recommended for the
> same reasons that the unlicense is not.
> --Ryan
The Unlicense has been submitted to License-Review and the review is
pending. If you have objections to it, then you should raise
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 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The MIT-0 license[1] is an MIT license with the attribution clause
> removed. It has notably been used to license
10 matches
Mail list logo
