search

dimkr / rlsd

A lightweight, retro Linux-libre distro
http://rlsd.dimakrasner.com
MIT License
72 stars 7 forks source link

License choice #43

Closed dbohdan closed 10 years ago

dbohdan commented 10 years ago

The Unlicense is has been criticised for its possible legal flaws. Perhaps CC0 could be used for the distribution instead? It's lawyer-approved.

dimkr commented 10 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, so I like WTFPL better - what do you think?

dbohdan commented 10 years ago

Here is what a lawyer specializing in FOSS thinks about WTFPL.

While I can appreciate the appeal of WTFPL's utter simplicity I think licensing is not a place to pursue minimalism/simplicity/elegance because the law's public API seems to be actively hostile to such attempts. A standard license that's widely used and lawyer-approved is unambiguously a good thing for a project. The length/complex wording is a non-issue in practice because the layman summary is all people will read, anyway. If nothing else, choosing CC0 (or the MIT license, etc.) will preclude any future discussions about the license being legally unsound/potentially dangerous to the contributors.

josefnpat commented 10 years ago

I agree with CC0 or MIT. WTFPL causes upstream issues for some FOSS orgs.