[License-discuss] Open Source license question

You can call your project “open source” as long as you are clear about the paid portion. Just to avoid all sorts of headaches for your downstream, users, and public position, keep the open source core portion in one git repo, and then keep the paid add-on in a *different* git repo, with build t

[License-discuss] I edited the CC0 license to solve patent issue, need some advice

If you have “I need to protect myself” or submarine patent license concerns, just release it under Apache-2.0, and then act like you released it as PD. You really can’t PD it and “protect yourself”. But if your intent is to let it be widely used, widely read, under terms that are well understoo

Re: [License-discuss] A modest proposal to reduce the number of BSD licenses

Hi! If anyone can find cases were Amazon or an Amazon company is publishing open source under a non-standard BSD license, please let me know, and we will fix it. If anyone gets involved in formally step by step relicensing an open source project and there are commits to it from Amazon sta

[License-discuss] Approval request: Legacy License "MIT No Attribution" or "MIT-0"

This is a request to approve as a legacy license the "MIT No Attribution" or "MIT-0" license as an OSI approved open source license. Simply, the MIT-0 license is the MIT license with the attribution requirement removed. As the MIT license is compliant with the Open Source Definition, the MIT-0