Why don't you feel that http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT meets this need?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Buck Golemon <buck.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apologies for the previous message. > I fat-fingered the send button before finishing my revision. > > --- > There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense have attempted to fill, which is > still not covered by any OSI approved license. > Are any of you willing (and able) to attempt to fill this gap? > > I believe the first step would be to agree on a (short!) list of minimum > requirements. > > My own requirements: > > 1) The license should be understandable by myself and my fellow engineers. > * This requires brevity. > 2) The license should have the absolute minimum of compatibility issues with > other OSI licenses. > * The licensee would ideally have no requirements placed on them by the > license. > 3) Assure both the licensee and licensor against litigation by the other (to > the extent possible, of course). > > It's entirely possible that 2) and 3) cannot both be accomplished by a > single license, but that's what I'm here to find out. > > > > I'm trying to follow up on the suggested course of action in these posts: > * > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000243.html > * > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
