5 ms·

I encourage you to look at the ISC license. Same thing, but shorter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license

frik 12y ago
The GNU lawyers advise: This license does have an unfortunate wording choice: it provides recipients with "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software…" This is roughly the same language from the license of Pine that the University of Washington later claimed prohibited people from distributing modified versions of the software. [...] to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license for their own works. The Expat License and FreeBSD License are similarly permissive and brief. -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ISC https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ISC
- teamhappy 12y ago
  I never got that quote. Pine's license said "and," and so did the ISC license. FSF pointed that out and ISC changed the license. Now it says "and/or." Both OSI and FSF have approved the license. And then they added (updated?) the text you quoted, complaining about the use of "and/or" ?! The problem with Pine seems to have been that it is/was a registered trademark (compare node.js/io.js). Also note the "Richard Stallman claims [...]" part of the Wikipedia article. Also note that nobody actually sued anyone. And even if they would have, who says they would have won? (Never mind the fact that legal precedents don't really matter outside of the US.) All things considered. I think we're good. --- Nothing wrong with choosing the MIT license though. Or the FreeBSD license. Or zlib, if you don't care about attribution.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Even more terse, there's the "0-clause BSD" (Toybox) license [1] and the Fair License [2]. The first one is essentially akin to releasing in the public domain, whereas the second is the MIT/ISC license distilled down to its very core. [1] http://landley.net/toybox/license.html http://landley.net/toybox/license.html [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/fair http://opensource.org/licenses/fair
- Doctor_Fegg 12y ago
  Terser still, WTFPL: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ WTFPL has come in for some stick about the lack of a warranty clause, so last time I had to choose a licence, I perverted it into the FTWPL: https://github.com/systemed/tagmangle/blob/master/LICENCE.txt https://github.com/systemed/tagmangle/blob/master/LICENCE.tx...
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    The Fair License is shorter. The WTFPL is about the same size as the Toybox license and has the same intent, but is far more legally ambiguous. I wouldn't use it for anything beyond toys.

frik 12y ago

The GNU lawyers advise: This license does have an unfortunate wording choice: it provides recipients with "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software…" This is roughly the same language from the license of Pine that the University of Washington later claimed prohibited people from distributing modified versions of the software. [...] to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license for their own works. The Expat License and FreeBSD License are similarly permissive and brief. -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ISC https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ISC

teamhappy 12y ago
I never got that quote. Pine's license said "and," and so did the ISC license. FSF pointed that out and ISC changed the license. Now it says "and/or." Both OSI and FSF have approved the license. And then they added (updated?) the text you quoted, complaining about the use of "and/or" ?! The problem with Pine seems to have been that it is/was a registered trademark (compare node.js/io.js). Also note the "Richard Stallman claims [...]" part of the Wikipedia article. Also note that nobody actually sued anyone. And even if they would have, who says they would have won? (Never mind the fact that legal precedents don't really matter outside of the US.) All things considered. I think we're good. --- Nothing wrong with choosing the MIT license though. Or the FreeBSD license. Or zlib, if you don't care about attribution.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

Even more terse, there's the "0-clause BSD" (Toybox) license [1] and the Fair License [2]. The first one is essentially akin to releasing in the public domain, whereas the second is the MIT/ISC license distilled down to its very core. [1] http://landley.net/toybox/license.html http://landley.net/toybox/license.html [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/fair http://opensource.org/licenses/fair

Doctor_Fegg 12y ago
Terser still, WTFPL: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ WTFPL has come in for some stick about the lack of a warranty clause, so last time I had to choose a licence, I perverted it into the FTWPL: https://github.com/systemed/tagmangle/blob/master/LICENCE.txt https://github.com/systemed/tagmangle/blob/master/LICENCE.tx...
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  The Fair License is shorter. The WTFPL is about the same size as the Toybox license and has the same intent, but is far more legally ambiguous. I wouldn't use it for anything beyond toys.