4 ms·
Another good reason to throw this license in the trash and just use the older, better named 0BSD license that is shorter and has the same effect.
by CameronNemo 5y ago
Another good reason to throw this license in the trash and just use the older, better named 0BSD license that is shorter and has the same effect.
- schemescape 5y agoFor what it's worth, my understanding is that the 0BSD license was similarly not authored at Berkeley [1] and, more confusingly, was derived from the ISC license (not the BSD licenses) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause_license_(%22BSD_Zero_Clause_License%22) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause_license_... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- CameronNemo 5y agoYes, but the spirit of "like the BSD license, but go even further and put no conditions on it" is pretty self-evident from the name, as long as you've heard of 4/3/2/1 clause BSD licenses. I think that is worth something. Something quite marginal, to be sure. But still a nicety.
- jhardy54 5y agoThat’s correct. Rob Landley and I came up with the same license text but called it different things. I called it the Free Public License and had it approved by the OSI under that name. He called it the 0BSD, and argued that since he came up with it first then it should be given his preferred name. I think “0BSD” is an awful name for an ISC-derived license, but eventually I gave up trying to argue with him because I felt that having two names was worse than one bad name.
- ad8e 5y ago0BSD has the slight advantage of Google placing it on their pre-approved licenses list, which means Google can use a 0BSD project but not an MIT-0 project: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty...