Subject: Re: Near Public Domain license
From: Jesse Hannah <jesse.hannah@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:09 -0700
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:09 -0700
I'm personally a big fan of the MIT license, it's much simpler and  
less restrictive than the GPL. Something like what Lawrence Rosen  
suggested---include a waiver of the right to enforce the terms of the  
license, maybe also one waiving the copyright and permission notice  
inclusion clause---would probably be the best way to do what you're  
looking for. That's basically what you have already, and it's still  
under an OSI license.
--
jbh

~~~~
Jesse B Hannah
	<jesse.hannah@gmail.com>
	<jesse.hannah@asu.edu>

Homepage: <http://www.lifeisleet.com>
Weblog: <http://blog.lifeisleet.com>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah@irc.freenode.net>

GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
	Available from the keyservers or at
	<http://www.lifeisleet.com/jesse.asc>


On 26 Jul 2007, at 06:11, Jean-Marc Lienher wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive  
> of this
> list.
>
> I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but  
> I've found
> that it is OSI incompatible.
> ( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html )
>
> Is there any such license already available ?
>
> Zlib is nice. But the
>     "If you use this software
>      in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation  
> would be
>      appreciated but is not required."
> sentence is too much.
> I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control.
> And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD.
>
> I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the
> documentation or in a README.txt file.
> I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the  
> binaries.
>
> I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license,  
> but I can't
> find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b )
> Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ?
>
> I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses  
> with
> zero condition.
> Here it is :
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -
>              Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>
>   Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this
>   work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
>
>   THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
>   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
>   MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND  
> NONINFRINGEMENT.
>   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 WORK.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
>
> But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money.
> I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create  
> the legal
> analysis...
>
> So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval  
> process,
> and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it.
>
>



["application/pgp-signature" not shown]