4 ms·

Nice! Didn't even know this exists. I'm a bit confused, tho: the only real content is: > This license gives everyone as much permission to work with this soft

by runxel 7y ago

Nice! Didn't even know this exists. I'm a bit confused, tho: the only real content is: > This license gives everyone as much permission to work with this software as possible, while protecting contributors from liability. This doesn't really sound unambiguous to me (but maybe that's because English is not my native language). As comparison from The Unlicense: > Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means. Somehow that's much clearer to me.

roryokane 7y ago
The Purpose paragraph you quoted from https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE... is far from “the only real content”. That paragraph is a statement of intent, not a compression of the details into one sentence. It’s not supposed to be unambiguous. The next seven paragraphs on Acceptance, Copyright, Notices, Excuse, Patent, Reliability, and No Liability are the actual rules of the license. The Blue Oak Model License aims to be closer to the MIT License than to the Unlicense. The Unlicense releases the software into the public domain, which means, for example, that someone who makes a derivative work could release that work under a proprietary license. In contrast, the Notices section of the Blue Oak Model License, just like the third paragraph of the MIT License, requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I would say the Blue Oak Model License uses the idea of “freedom through self-imposed restrictions” more than both the Unlicense and the MIT License. I think the biggest difference between the MIT License and the Blue Oak Model License is that the MIT License doesn’t mention patents, which (some lawyers think) could allow authors of MIT-Licensed software to sue users for violating their patents used by the software. The Blue Oak Model License’s Patent section closes that loophole.

by runxel 7y ago

roryokane 7y ago

The Purpose paragraph you quoted from https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE... is far from “the only real content”. That paragraph is a statement of intent, not a compression of the details into one sentence. It’s not supposed to be unambiguous. The next seven paragraphs on Acceptance, Copyright, Notices, Excuse, Patent, Reliability, and No Liability are the actual rules of the license. The Blue Oak Model License aims to be closer to the MIT License than to the Unlicense. The Unlicense releases the software into the public domain, which means, for example, that someone who makes a derivative work could release that work under a proprietary license. In contrast, the Notices section of the Blue Oak Model License, just like the third paragraph of the MIT License, requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I would say the Blue Oak Model License uses the idea of “freedom through self-imposed restrictions” more than both the Unlicense and the MIT License. I think the biggest difference between the MIT License and the Blue Oak Model License is that the MIT License doesn’t mention patents, which (some lawyers think) could allow authors of MIT-Licensed software to sue users for violating their patents used by the software. The Blue Oak Model License’s Patent section closes that loophole.