"Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar..."
The Simple Permissive License is most similar to The MIT License. The MIT License does not suffice for my needs because it is too long and complex for the programmers that I work with to read. As one example of this problem, these programmers persist in choosing the questionable "public domain declaration" for their code over the MIT License, in part because the MIT License is too long and legalistic for their taste. The Simple Permissive License has been simplified from the MIT License by the following changes: 1. omit "and associated documentation files" 2. replace "the Software" with "this software", and omit the explanation that "the Software" means "this software" 3. omit "without limitation" 4. omit "copy", "merge", and "publish" 5. omit "... of the Software" 6. replace "subject to the following conditions:" with "provided that" 7. omit the contents of the disclaimer of warranty after the first part 8. parenthesize the enumerated rights "Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses." The Simple Permissive License is exactly as permissive as the MIT License. "Include the plain text version of your license at the end of the email, either as an insertion or as an attachment." ------- Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software to deal in this software without restriction (including the rights to use, modify, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies) provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice is included in all copies or substantial portions of this software. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. ------- http://zooko.com/simple_permissive_license.html Thank you for your time. Regards, Bryce "Zooko" Wilcox-O'Hearn -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3