5 ms·
It’s not just the name. Also it’s not written as good as it could be. CC0 is a good alternative.
by legulere 6y ago
It’s not just the name. Also it’s not written as good as it could be. CC0 is a good alternative.
- philjackson 6y ago> Also it’s not written as good as it could be :)
- Uehreka 6y agoI’ve heard that CC0 is better for content than code (though I can’t remember exactly why). Either way, I wish the Unlicense and WTFPL people would get over themselves and just go with MIT: a license that I think they would use if it was called the “Do-What-You-Want-Just-Don’t-Sue-Me” License.
- legulere 6y agoCreative Commons generally is better for content than for code. CC0 is an exception. It tries to put something into public domain and where that is not possible tries to grant the same rights.
- rbehrends 6y agoAnd if you want something OSI-approved you can use either the MIT-0 [1] or the Zero-Clause BSD [2] license. The MIT-0 license is the MIT license without the attribution requirement, the Zero-Clause BSD license is (somewhat misleadingly) the ISC license without the attribution requirement. [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0 https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0 [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- legulere 6y agoCC0 simply isn’t an OSI-approved license because it explicitly states that it isn’t about patents: https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero