![]() ![]() I predict that regardless of what happens in this repo, MIT-0 will be vastly more popular than 0BSD in 20 years (the appropriate timescale to think about license adoption). There's no debate about the derivation of 0BSD, only what to call it - and the debate is long over, 0BSD is a fine name, I only brought it up here since you mention derivation - it's derived from the ISC license used by OpenBSD - it's derived from the license used by a BSD, not derived from a BSD license. I'm not aware of any arguments or fingers on the scale that distinguish 0BSD, MIT-0 and Unlicense, although i personally find the last name confusing in the current legal framework as "unlicensed work" are all rights reserved while "Unlicensed works" are no right reserved. Since Googles thumb is on the scale that license is 0BSD and it would be annoying if people chose another license based on recommendations but later would have to switch project license to accept a patch from an Google employee. While it is odd that Google is putting their thumb on the scale which of the public domain equivalent licenses wins out, i would prefer for a licenses picker tool to recommend the license which has the least risk of downstream problems. I just wanted to raise awareness that 0BSD unlike any other Public Domain equivalent license (including MIT-0) is approved to be contributed under by Google employees. However i would not fight a war over which license to replace the "Unlicense" with (since 0BSD and probably also MIT-0 are OSI approved). But as you say the distinction is irrelevant other than to trigger annoyance in people to involved in the discussion.Ī short search for "0BSD" vs "MIT-0" on GitHub shows the first one is vastly ( x4 ) more popular. In this discussion i favor Rob Landley, creator of the 0BSD license which claims he derived it by changing a BSD license (he should know). I know that there is an ongoing debate whether 0BSD derives from a BSD or the ISC license. Of course they all amount to the same thing, so it isn't super important. My weak bias is to update by replacing Unlicense with MIT-0, which is based on MIT - far more common and thus more familiar than BSD-* these days, and anyway 0BSD is a derivative of ISC, not BSD-*. There was a robust discussion of Unlicense on the OSI list last year, spanning many months, the result being approval, see ![]() This still is not ideal of course, as Google employees are important contributors to open source. If you follow the reference at the source as well as it looks like patching is not allowed (at least not without additional process) though use is. That source quotes me from many years ago saying I like Unlicense, as a movement anyway. I presume by promote you're referring to listing on - it was added there to fill out the spectrum from the strongest copyleft to public domain equivalent - in the latter category, at the time the only other option was CC0-1.0 which is more problematic for software due to its express non-grant of a patent license. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |