3 ms·
The Unlicense seems to be unapproved by OSI as well. I'm getting the impression the OSI for some reason doesn't want to approve any license without restrictions
by hannob 10y ago
The Unlicense seems to be unapproved by OSI as well. I'm getting the impression the OSI for some reason doesn't want to approve any license without restrictions.
One option is of course to "hack" the osi approval by, e.g., saying "this is licensed under CC0, alternatively it's licensed under MIT". (MIT is just an example and can be replaced with any other OSI-approved license).
But it seems a bit stupid that there isn't an easy solution for this.
- lmm 10y agoThe OSI doesn't want to approve any public domain dedication, they believe it's better to use an open-source license (or else that a public domain dedication is outside their scope, since in a technical sense it isn't necessarily a license). I don't know why they evaluated the fallback license of CC0 and didn't evaluate the fallback license of Unlicense - maybe it's just a question of it never being submitted by the authors?
- jcranmer 10y ago> The OSI doesn't want to approve any public domain dedication, they believe it's better to use an open-source license I've heard that the ability to dedicate your work to the public domain may not be possible in some European jurisdictions, and this concern was why public domain dedications were frowned upon.
- richardfontana 10y agoThe Unlicense was never submitted for OSI approval.
- richardfontana 10y agoIn the past couple of years the OSI approved a license that essentially has no restrictions: https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0
- lmm 10y agoCool. Sadly looks like the FSF haven't commented on it?