3 ms·
You might be one of the people that down-voted my submission. This is probably a language problem, I don't think the original MIT license is a permissive licens
by aliasEli 5y ago
You might be one of the people that down-voted my submission. This is probably a language problem, I don't think the original MIT license is a permissive license at all in this case.
- chrismorgan 5y agoIn the open source space, the term “permissive license” is well understood to mean licenses like MIT and Apache2 and CC-BY, which allow you to do whatever you like with the work so long as you acknowledge the author and license terms. It sounds like you meant something more like a public domain dedication like CC0, which is about the only way you can go more permissive past the likes of MIT/Apache2/CC-BY.
- dtech 5y agoAlso, CC0 etc. are not really called "permissive licenses", because they explicitly waive away any and all rights a license would entail. In the same way "off" isn't a TV channel. Creative commons specifically calls CC0 an "alternative to our licenses" [1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...
- ksec 5y agoOr zero-clause BSD and ISC. Although both are generally discouraged and EU advise on using MIT instead, which we now end up with the acknowledgement problem.