Hot answers tagged

6

I recently worked with the team at GitHub to provide more information about 0BSD. More info about Landly's 0BSD now appears on choosealicense.com and, subsequently, will appear on GitHub license drop-downs (takes time). Beyond that you can also find more info about 0BSD on Wiki which I added after you asked this question. Other places to seek information ...


3

Kyle E. Mitchell on /dev/lawer makes a compelling argument against using no-attribution licenses like 0BSD, et al.: Some recent licenses, like 0BSD, omit attribution conditions. There is literally nothing users have to do to use or reuse work under these licenses. That’s the ideal of “anti-licenses” like WTFPL and also public domain dedications: Anyone ...


3

There is at least one reason to avoid 0BSD: it's not popular. Meaning that most likely it was not reviewed by most corporation's law departments. If I were to use or contribute to 0BSD code at work I'll have to chase Google lawyers to clear it. Apache 2 is generally recommended as trouble-free.


3

I have already written on the subject of relicensing; if you read the whole of that question you can see my answer reflects a viewpoint which is widely-, but far from universally-, held. From that viewpoint I don't see a problem with what you want to do. In the first place, the Ritchey EPL v2 does not require you to convey either the code itself, or ...


1

Copyright James Daniel Marrs Ritchey. This material was created for submission at 'Recommended license for small script without an attribution clause?', but can also be alternatively obtained from 'https://snippetly.blogspot.com/2019/12/searching-for-permissive-license-with.html' under the terms of any of the following licenses: Ritchey Permissive ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible