[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: most liberal license

Hi,


Harald Geyer wrote:

Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any
objections against my draft.

However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in
  whatever "substantial portions of the Software" are.
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
  it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
  software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
I thought you could (BSD code, AFAIK the TCP/IP stack, whose new licence is AFAIK equivalent to this one, is AFAIK included in some Version of Windows, and AFAIK I use too much AFAIK), but re-reading the licence, I would have to agree to you. Maybe someone smarter than me can point us out how the MIT (or the BSD 2-clause) licence allows proprietary use and distribution. 


Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told,
that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about
my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the
same rights *as* public domain.
Has been proposed, but since Public Domain does not exist in these jurisdiction, "like Public Domain" ist just as useless. I just repeat what I think I read on the list before, all disclaimer apply. 

Gruesse,
nomeata
Reply to: