On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 23/04/14 16:59, Buck Golemon wrote: > > and another > > package's license says "modified versions cannot contain additional > > attribution requirements." > > I don't know of any licenses which say that. Can you point me at an > example? > I cannot. I don't have broad knowledge of license terms. My question is: Is it possible to have an MIT-like license with no requirements on derivative works? (I'm referring to this clause: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.") While I don't know whether the MIT requirements cause issues with any OSI or other popular license, it's factual that there is a demand for an absolutely-permissive open-source license, and until there is an OSI-vetted solution, people will continue to use or invent other solutions (think of: sqlite, cc0, unlicense, wtfpl). The wtfpl, the unlicense and other public domain attributions are crayon licenses, while the cc0 is too complex and not OSI-approved besides, so I come here asking for help in making a simple yet legally sound license which fills this demand. 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
