5 ms·

I was involved with a group of open licensing lawyers that ended up publishing a "model" permissive license: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 https://bl

I was involved with a group of open licensing lawyers that ended up publishing a "model" permissive license: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 It's not everything anyone ever wanted, but we think it's a lot closer.

rectang 6y ago
I like the way this license is much clearer about rights and obligations. From the standpoint of software developers being able to grok it, it looks like a strong improvement on the MIT and BSD families. If you are serious about adoption, I suggest providing an official header to embed in files. Something simple like this: // Licensed under https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 Also "instructions on how to use this license in your software project" would be helpful. (Paste the text of the license into a file named "LICENSE", "LICENSE.md", or similar. Add the header as a comment to every file...)
- kemitchell 6y ago
  Thanks. We didn't originally set out to write a new license, but when we did, we put real time and thought into it. It's nice to see that appreciated. We've shied away from declaring one "right" way to use the license, because norms, conventions, and expectations vary so much across development communities. What's right and normal for, say, Maven artifacts would seem a bit strange in, say, an npm package or a C library.
  - luord 6y ago
    I too like the license, and wouldn't mind using it. Have you considered submitting it for approval to the OSI and FSF?
    - kemitchell 6y ago
      Everyone involved in the drafting has been through the OSI license process---or some ever-changing version of it---before. Last we discussed, nobody wanted to do that process again, even for an uncontroversial permissive license. Personally, I don't care what OSI says. If someone else wants to go and ask them about it, more power to them.

rectang 6y ago

I like the way this license is much clearer about rights and obligations. From the standpoint of software developers being able to grok it, it looks like a strong improvement on the MIT and BSD families. If you are serious about adoption, I suggest providing an official header to embed in files. Something simple like this: // Licensed under https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 Also "instructions on how to use this license in your software project" would be helpful. (Paste the text of the license into a file named "LICENSE", "LICENSE.md", or similar. Add the header as a comment to every file...)

kemitchell 6y ago
Thanks. We didn't originally set out to write a new license, but when we did, we put real time and thought into it. It's nice to see that appreciated. We've shied away from declaring one "right" way to use the license, because norms, conventions, and expectations vary so much across development communities. What's right and normal for, say, Maven artifacts would seem a bit strange in, say, an npm package or a C library.
- luord 6y ago
  I too like the license, and wouldn't mind using it. Have you considered submitting it for approval to the OSI and FSF?
  - kemitchell 6y ago
    Everyone involved in the drafting has been through the OSI license process---or some ever-changing version of it---before. Last we discussed, nobody wanted to do that process again, even for an uncontroversial permissive license. Personally, I don't care what OSI says. If someone else wants to go and ask them about it, more power to them.