-
**1.** License Name: Unlicense variant
**2.** Short identifier: Unlicense-variant
**3.** License Author or steward: Unknown
**4.** Comments: This was found during License review in Fedora Linux https:…
-
**1.** License Name: Adapted from 3rd paragraph of Unlicense
**2.** Short identifier: Unlicense-3rd-paragraph
**3.** License Author or steward: Unknown
**4.** Comments: Used in Fedora and found during…
-
Over the past 15 years, the initiative has seen a fair bit of success even without any active efforts on our part. The site copy (such as for #93) should highlight the [social proof](https://en.wikipe…
-
During upgrade of our own license-classifications.yml I have noticed that there are two entries for maybe the same license in your license-classifications.yml:
- [Unlicense](https://github.com/oss-re…
mawl updated
3 months ago
-
Would it be possible to provide a bon-ai variant of [Unlicense](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/) here please?
-
The Unlicense doesn’t dedicate the source code to the public domain in all jurisdictions. It also is not as battle-tested as CC0.
https://chrismorgan.info/blog/unlicense/
https://lists.opensource.…
-
WTFPL is highly discouraged and not recommended due to its bad language and no warranty disclaimer. I suggest we re-license the whole mod to MIT or the Unlicense, but I'm not sure if we have to ask al…
-
In preparation of showcasing a curated collection of only the most significant projects using the Unlicense, do a first pass of the existing list so as to remove abandoned projects and fix any links t…
-
notqmail's direct ancestor qmail is public-domain, but that may not be legally valid everywhere on the planet. I just encountered and wonder if that's what we might want for notqmail.
-
The README states
> This code is placed into the public domain under the terms described by the Unlicense.
but the license key in the toml file says CC0. Did https://github.com/emk/abort_on_pani…