Talk:Public-domain-equivalent license: Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
And it's not just "the toybox license": github's choose-a-license now recognizes Zero Clause BSD, ever since https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/643 was merged. |
And it's not just "the toybox license": github's choose-a-license now recognizes Zero Clause BSD, ever since https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/643 was merged. |
||
The genealogy of the license is it's the OpenBSD suggested template license with half a sentence removed (that's the source it was copied from), and its first user asked permission from Kirk McKusick in 2013 to call it a BSD license (and confirmed it in 2018, with the permission email recorded for posterity at http://landley.net/toybox/0bsd-mckusick.txt). |
The genealogy of the license is it's the OpenBSD suggested template license with half a sentence removed (that's the source it was copied from, see https://landley.net/toybox/license.html), and its first user asked permission from Kirk McKusick in 2013 to call it a BSD license (and confirmed it in 2018, with the permission email recorded for posterity at http://landley.net/toybox/0bsd-mckusick.txt). |
||
The rationale for explicitly choosing a license that could be called a BSD license (and getting permission to do so from the guy who owns the BSD daemon trademark) was explained at https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/11 |
The rationale for explicitly choosing a license that could be called a BSD license (and getting permission to do so from the guy who owns the BSD daemon trademark) was explained at https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/11 |
||
Revision as of 22:35, 18 May 2019
0BSD now consistently named
OSI agreed to SPDX's precedent and switched to calling it "Zero-Clause BSD".
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.78 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Zero Clause BSD was recognized by SPDX first (in 2015, 0BSD is the SPDX short identifier for the license), there's no need to mention OSI, they contributed nothing to the process. What they eventually did was undo their mistake of misidentifying the license, 3 years late to the party.
And it's not just "the toybox license": github's choose-a-license now recognizes Zero Clause BSD, ever since https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/643 was merged.
The genealogy of the license is it's the OpenBSD suggested template license with half a sentence removed (that's the source it was copied from, see https://landley.net/toybox/license.html), and its first user asked permission from Kirk McKusick in 2013 to call it a BSD license (and confirmed it in 2018, with the permission email recorded for posterity at http://landley.net/toybox/0bsd-mckusick.txt).
The rationale for explicitly choosing a license that could be called a BSD license (and getting permission to do so from the guy who owns the BSD daemon trademark) was explained at https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/11
Page for "Unlicense"
Given that there is a wikipedia article for CC0 and for WTFPL, would it be a good idea to have one for Unlicense (currently a redirect here)
-- Harry Wood (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Harry Wood: I think it would be a good idea. I had actually begun working on a draft on February 9 at User:Riceissa/Unlicense. I've now resumed work on it and it should be published to main shortly. Feel free to contribute. Cheers, Riceissa (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I have now published the page at Unlicense. Riceissa (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice one! The new Unlicense article looks great. Thanks for doing that. - Harry Wood (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I have now published the page at Unlicense. Riceissa (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)