Re: most liberal license
> > * 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.)
>
> You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license
> used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This
> requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe.
Perhaps you are right, but on the other hand it says "permission notice"
and not only "notice". I wouldn't bet anything on it's actual meaning.
However this issue is the easiest to overcome as I could just delete
the sentence from my own version.
> > * It is an enumerate style license, which means that
> > - you might forget something
> > - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying
> > you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything i
> s.
> > - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein,
> > but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights
> .
> >
> > 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.
>
> First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not
> accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain
> software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a
> thing does not exist, then I suggest reading
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular
> the part starting with "I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.".
Thanks for that link! This really is a nice approach.
However: Is there no way to say in a legally binding way "everything"
without having to enumerate it?
Harald
Reply to: