On 5/13/2020 2:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 5/13/20 11:08 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>> Mark, LMK if you need help starting the process to get it OSI-certified.
> I don't think we need anything else, we're already going over it on
> license-review.
>
I don't believe MIT-0 was submitted for approva
On 5/13/20 11:08 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> Mark, LMK if you need help starting the process to get it OSI-certified.
I don't think we need anything else, we're already going over it on
license-review.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this e
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:20 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/25/20 7:43 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> > Almost all the sample, reference, teaching, documentation, and "blog"
> code published by Amazon is MIT-0. Except for the stuff for Alexa and for
> Lambda, and I'm hoping that changes. We like MIT-
On 4/25/20 7:43 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Almost all the sample, reference, teaching, documentation, and "blog" code
> published by Amazon is MIT-0. Except for the stuff for Alexa and for
> Lambda, and I'm hoping that changes. We like MIT-0 for that purpose
> because the intent is that our c
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 10:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/22/20 7:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Here is my non-proliferation question:
> Is there significant use of MIT-0 in the field?
Almost all the sample, reference, teaching, documentation, and "blog" code
published by Amazon is MIT-0. Exc
e rights to grant by action of
para. 3.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On
Behalf Of mc...@lexpan.law
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:50 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifyin
Moving discussion to license-review, since the Unlicense is under review.
Pam
On 4/24/2020 10:45 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> 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
Moving to license-review, since it is discussing a license currently
under review.
On 4/24/2020 10:38 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 tr
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
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 20:03 Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> For the
> suggested use case, I’d say CC0 may be better, especially as
> it’s not a work licence but licences the ability to licence
> the work, so any recipient can licence the work under any OSI-
> approved (or not, I guess) licence. Might
Josh Berkus dixit:
>I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it
>as "technically OSS but not really needed". But if projects are using
Didn’t we have a… resolution, or so… that licences that are the
approved ones with only removal of restrictions (or changes to
things
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:09 AM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; Richard Fontana
>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
>
>
> I would argue that,
On 4/22/20 7:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> It seems likely it would be approved, given the approval a few years
> ago of the similar, ISC-based license now known as Zero-Clause BSD,
> though perhaps some would object on anti-proliferation grounds.
Here is my non-proliferation question:
Is there
(smiles)
JBC
> On Apr 22, 2020, at 19:33, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> people can have a strong authorial sort of interest even in minimalist
> reductions of the most textually minimalist open source licenses.
___
The opinions expressed in this email
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and great pointers.
Let me know, Mark, if I can help draft the proposal. I have zero experience
doing so, but at least it's fitting given the license name. :)
And please feel free to copy me on the submission. I'll be happy to add my
use case provided my
FWIW I thought the zLib license was a good alternative for this use-case
(e.g. sample code that you expect people to use, modify and you don't want
to be attributed). But MIT-0 has the Warranty disclaimer. Seems better for
that reason.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
>From
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 08:28, McCoy Smith wrote:
> You might want to check with original author before you do that, e.g.,
> https://romanrm.net/mit-zero
> BSD0 is already approved: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
I hesitate to call them "the original author". Amazon independently "invente
7:52 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0
>
> Submitting MIT-0 and BSD-0 for OSI approval is on my near term todo list.
>
> ..m
>
>
> ___
> The opinions expressed in
Submitting MIT-0 and BSD-0 for OSI approval is on my near term todo list.
..m
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative
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 example and scaffolding code.
>
> It doesn’t look that it has been approved by the OSI. I couldn’t find it on
> th
Hi Tobie,
There was a thread on license-review about MIT-0 in December, beginning here:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-December/004576.html
It was never submitted for approval, but apparently it was
inadvertently listed as OSI-approved on the SPDX l
Hi all,
The MIT-0 license[1] is an MIT license with the attribution clause removed.
It has notably been used to license example and scaffolding code.
It doesn’t look that it has been approved by the OSI. I couldn’t find it on
the licenses page[2].
I imagine that is has been discussed on license-
27 matches
Mail list logo
