5 ms·

Is "zero-clause BSD" a joke, or is it considered a legitimate license? If the latter, does it actually differ from the MIT license in anything other than name?

• sethops1 3y ago
  It is approved by OSI[1] [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
• explodingcamera 3y ago
  zero-clause BSD is essentially a modified MIT that doesn't even require attribution, so essentially a "public domain" like license.
• kube-system 3y ago
  Presuming that 'MIT' was a typo: most BSD-licensed software doesn't use the original (4-clause) BSD license, most are under variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
  • saghm 3y ago
    No, it wasn't a typo; the 0-clause BSD looks pretty similar to the MIT license, and from a cursory reading, it appears that the clauses are what makes the BSD license different from the MIT license. I was wondering if my reading is correct or if I've missed something.
    • kube-system 3y ago
      MIT has several (very important) requirements that BSD-0 does not. MIT is more similar to BSD-2-clause. It requires the user to include the copyright notice and disclaimer in any distributions.
• 0x69420 3y ago
  it eschews attribution, making it just about the closest thing to a public-domain dedication that still retains the appropriate verbiage to hold up to legal scrutiny
  • mminer237 3y ago
    In the US, simply saying "I hereby dedicate this work to the public domain." is as an effective, if not more effective, way to do that as any license. These licenses are just for countries like Germany that basically make it illegal to sell, gift, or release a copyright at all.
    • fomine3 3y ago
      It's great feature that we don't need consider where authors locate
• MzHN 3y ago
  There's also another OSI approved "zero" license called MIT-0 https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/ https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/
  • EasyMark 3y ago
    always preferred east coast in the east/west coast war.