MIT requires preservation of copyright and license, which falls directly into the scenario outlined on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
Suppose a software package has a license that says, "*modified versions > must *[preserve license and copyright notice]" and another package's > license says "modified versions cannot contain additional attribution > requirements." Without direct permission from the copyright holder(s) for at > least one of the two packages, it would be impossible to legally > distribute a combination of the two because these specific license > requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Thus, these two packages > would be license-incompatible. I suppose the goal could be restated as: a license similar in spirit to MIT, but without the copyright and license requirements. On Apr 23, 2014 5:41 AM, "Ben Tilly" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
