Subject: Re: Near Public Domain license
From: Jesse Hannah <jesse.hannah@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:59 -0700
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:59 -0700
I'm not judging whether or not it's the best idea to license  
something that openly :) It really is for the best that the MIT  
License requires an inclusion of the license and copyright---it still  
requires attribution, so the origin of the code and copyright is  
never in doubt, but it places zero restrictions on use of the code  
and removes all guarantee of warranty. Plus it's so much shorter and  
simpler than the BSD license. My personal suggestion to the OP would  
be to just use the MIT License; it isn't a bad thing that it requires  
the people who use the code to know where it came from, and other  
than that its terms are exactly what you're looking for in a 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 14:16, David Woolley wrote:

> Jesse Hannah wrote:
>> license, maybe also one waiving the copyright and permission  
>> notice inclusion clause---would probably be the best way to do  
>> what you're
>
> Anyone exercising that waiver would compromise the distributility  
> of the material they redistributed, because anyone receiving it  
> would have to assume that, as very little software is out of  
> copyright by reason of age, that it was copyright by an unknown  
> person and that person had reserved all rights, and they would find  
> it difficult to establish otherwise.
>
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.



["application/pgp-signature" not shown]