Thanks! Do you think the community will be interested in a shorter license? Something that can be stamped on to each source file.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Fleming <kevin+...@kpfleming.us> wrote: > The zlib license is OSI-approved and does not require attribution: > > http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Sagar <sagar.writ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is there a short permissive OSI approved license that doesn't require >> attribution? >> >> The popular permissive open source licenses like MIT and BSD require >> attribution. It would be good to have a license where that is not required. >> There are many of us who are happy with attribution but don't want to >> legally enforce it. Here is an example of a popular library using public >> domain dedication with a fallback license: >> >> https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_vorbis.c >> >> I propose a public domain dedication with a BSD-style fallback without >> the attribution requirement: >> >> "This software is in the public domain. Where that dedication is not >> recognized, redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with >> or without modification, are permitted. No warranty for any purpose >> is expressed or implied." >> >> Is the public domain dedication redundant? Will it suffice to just say >> "redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >> modification, are permitted" ? >> >> Thanks, >> Sagar >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@opensource.org >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > -- Sagar
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss