5 ms·

For 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 licens

For 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
That’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.