4 ms·

Seems identical to the Zero-Clause BSD.

• throw0101a 5y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
• creatonez 5y ago
  I believe it is. Note that 0BSD is not related to the other BSD licenses, but is rather textually derived from the ISC license. The ISC license is pretty much just "what if we took MIT, and removed all the text that is already implied in most jurisdictions?" So 0BSD is to MIT-0 as ISC is to MIT. Just a less verbose alternative.
• ghaff 5y ago
  There’s also been the unlicense fairly recently. They’re all intended as lightweight ways to effectively put something into the public domain—to the degree you can in a given jurisdiction.
  • creatonez 5y ago
    Unlicense is known to have problems in some jurisdictions. There was a discussion about this on the OSI mailing listing years ago. StackExchange answer summarizing the OSI mailing listing discussion - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/147111/what-is-wrong-with-the-unlicense/147120#147120 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1471... The discussion itself - https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/001386.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.ope...
    • ghaff 5y ago
      And there’s also the anti-copyright ideological baggage associated with unlicense. To round it out there’s also CC0 but OSI objected to the explicit lack of patent grant language even though patent grants are often assumed.