2 ms·

Ditto, I guess? :P (But obviously with the position on the Unlicense flipped.) To address your indictment head-on: you suggesting the 0BSD as a better alternat

Ditto, I guess? :P (But obviously with the position on the Unlicense flipped.) To address your indictment head-on: you suggesting the 0BSD as a better alternative is really missing my point. The 0BSD is not an alternative for my use case. The Unlicense is one of the very few overt "political" acts that I inject into the software I produce. Its purpose is to make a statement. The 0BSD doesn't do that IMO, so it's not actually an alternative that meets my advocacy goal. You and Rick Moen seem to have the same apparent blind spot for this. See my conversation with him that started here (which might also clarify some aspects of my own position): https://github.com/docopt/docopt.rs/issues/1#issuecomment-428682183 https://github.com/docopt/docopt.rs/issues/1#issuecomment-42... And finally, note that my dual licensing scheme is exactly a response to the "problems pointed out by quite a few people": https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26 https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26

chrismorgan 4y ago
Hmm… I had indeed forgotten some of those details of your reasoning—it’s mostly stuff that I read several years ago and my memories of it have faded with time. In suggesting 0BSD, I am indeed talking on legal grounds. For Unlicense, the only part of it that would seem to be any kind of “statement” is its name, which… well, you know my opinion of the misbegotten name. I feel like there must surely be some better way of making that statement (which I agree with!), but I don’t know what. (I’ve been having fun using BlueOak-1.0.0, which is generally superior to the likes of MIT and Apache-2.0, and have been rather tempted to release things under only that license, and tough luck to anyone that cares about OSI approval, as BlueOak-1.0.0 is not OSI-approved largely because the authors are unimpressed with OSI process after having been involved with it for years in the past, but so far I’ve been doing silly things like trial-licensing BlueOak-1.0.0/MIT/Apache-2.0 to satisfy people’s sensibilities. I’ve also been wondering if I should just throw in the towel and go 0BSD, not like I care about the attribution anyway, or would ever pursue any license violation of any form for reasons of conscience. I had thought of going CC0-1.0 or similar, but legal limitations of PDD versus licenses decided me against it when I was mulling it over. Pity public domain dedication is so hard to do properly and so surprisingly limited in scope.)
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Just to be really clear here, the statement is not just in the name. It is also in the first sentence on unlicense.org: > The Unlicense is a template for *disclaiming copyright monopoly interest* in software you've written But yes, the name is a big part of the "statement," I agree. > Pity public domain dedication is so hard to do properly and so surprisingly limited in scope. Indeed. That should change.

chrismorgan 4y ago

Hmm… I had indeed forgotten some of those details of your reasoning—it’s mostly stuff that I read several years ago and my memories of it have faded with time. In suggesting 0BSD, I am indeed talking on legal grounds. For Unlicense, the only part of it that would seem to be any kind of “statement” is its name, which… well, you know my opinion of the misbegotten name. I feel like there must surely be some better way of making that statement (which I agree with!), but I don’t know what. (I’ve been having fun using BlueOak-1.0.0, which is generally superior to the likes of MIT and Apache-2.0, and have been rather tempted to release things under only that license, and tough luck to anyone that cares about OSI approval, as BlueOak-1.0.0 is not OSI-approved largely because the authors are unimpressed with OSI process after having been involved with it for years in the past, but so far I’ve been doing silly things like trial-licensing BlueOak-1.0.0/MIT/Apache-2.0 to satisfy people’s sensibilities. I’ve also been wondering if I should just throw in the towel and go 0BSD, not like I care about the attribution anyway, or would ever pursue any license violation of any form for reasons of conscience. I had thought of going CC0-1.0 or similar, but legal limitations of PDD versus licenses decided me against it when I was mulling it over. Pity public domain dedication is so hard to do properly and so surprisingly limited in scope.)

burntsushi 4y ago
Just to be really clear here, the statement is not just in the name. It is also in the first sentence on unlicense.org: > The Unlicense is a template for *disclaiming copyright monopoly interest* in software you've written But yes, the name is a big part of the "statement," I agree. > Pity public domain dedication is so hard to do properly and so surprisingly limited in scope. Indeed. That should change.