5 ms·

If you would like a non-copyleft free software license consider using the ISC license. It removes language not required by modern laws. It's the preferred licen

by dmm 11y ago

If you would like a non-copyleft free software license consider using the ISC license. It removes language not required by modern laws. It's the preferred license for the OpenBSD project. Here it is: Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

PurplePanda 11y ago
The OpenBSD license template is slightly different, eliding the "/or". http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plain http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/shar...
- driax 11y ago
  I believe the "/or" was added after it was submitted the OSI and FSF, because they felt that it could be misinterpreted without. However it appears that OpenBSD didn't change their version (probably because they don't believe it's ambiguous).
driax 11y ago
Though, just a language simplification of the MIT License. (not that that is bad). However it is not as permissive as the 1-clause BSD spelled out in the article, since it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution. The Boost license is one of the licenses I remember to be in effect the same as that 1-clause BSD license. Which is nice since you can use the Boost header-only libraries without having to consider where you going to credit them, much like any standard library in most languages.
- fenomas 11y ago
  > it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution. Really? I thought MIT/ISC just meant one can't remove that notice when redistributing the source. Is one supposed to do something particular with binaries as well?
  - gulpahum 11y ago
    The MIT license says: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Typically, "Software" means also binaries [1]. The MIT license text is usually included in the software documentation or about box. If you are not sure where to put it, then ask the open source project owners how to attribute them. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/10681216 http://stackoverflow.com/a/10681216
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    In some sense aren't binaries modified versions of the source?
laegoose 11y ago
Why half of the license is CAPSLOCKED? Is it really necessary?
- selleck 11y ago
  That is the "warranty" section of the license. Most software contracts as a standard have the warranty section in all caps. Source - I sell a database and deal with software contracts on a weekly basis.
- zhte415 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be capitalized. US law (and probably some other places) requires key parts of a contract to be 'conspicuous' i.e. well read and not missed. CAPS LOCK NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT seems to be a convention (in the US) [for making things 'conspicuous'] where something as revolutionary such as bullet points may not be. This is not global convention (for making things 'conspicuous') and seems peculiar to the US.

by dmm 11y ago

PurplePanda 11y ago

The OpenBSD license template is slightly different, eliding the "/or". http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plain http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/shar...

driax 11y ago
I believe the "/or" was added after it was submitted the OSI and FSF, because they felt that it could be misinterpreted without. However it appears that OpenBSD didn't change their version (probably because they don't believe it's ambiguous).

driax 11y ago

Though, just a language simplification of the MIT License. (not that that is bad). However it is not as permissive as the 1-clause BSD spelled out in the article, since it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution. The Boost license is one of the licenses I remember to be in effect the same as that 1-clause BSD license. Which is nice since you can use the Boost header-only libraries without having to consider where you going to credit them, much like any standard library in most languages.

fenomas 11y ago
> it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution. Really? I thought MIT/ISC just meant one can't remove that notice when redistributing the source. Is one supposed to do something particular with binaries as well?
- gulpahum 11y ago
  The MIT license says: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Typically, "Software" means also binaries [1]. The MIT license text is usually included in the software documentation or about box. If you are not sure where to put it, then ask the open source project owners how to attribute them. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/10681216 http://stackoverflow.com/a/10681216
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  In some sense aren't binaries modified versions of the source?

laegoose 11y ago

Why half of the license is CAPSLOCKED? Is it really necessary?

selleck 11y ago
That is the "warranty" section of the license. Most software contracts as a standard have the warranty section in all caps. Source - I sell a database and deal with software contracts on a weekly basis.
zhte415 11y ago
It doesn't have to be capitalized. US law (and probably some other places) requires key parts of a contract to be 'conspicuous' i.e. well read and not missed. CAPS LOCK NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT seems to be a convention (in the US) [for making things 'conspicuous'] where something as revolutionary such as bullet points may not be. This is not global convention (for making things 'conspicuous') and seems peculiar to the US.