
The Amazing Disappearing BSD License (2005) - callum85
https://urchin.earth.li/~twic/The_Amazing_Disappearing_BSD_License.html
======
dmm
If you would like a non-copyleft free software license consider using the ISC
license. It removes language not required by modern laws. It's the preferred
license for the OpenBSD project.

Here it is:

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH
REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

~~~
laegoose
Why half of the license is CAPSLOCKED? Is it really necessary?

~~~
zhte415
It doesn't have to be capitalized. US law (and probably some other places)
requires key parts of a contract to be 'conspicuous' i.e. well read and not
missed.

CAPS LOCK NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT seems to be a convention (in the
US) [for making things 'conspicuous'] where something as revolutionary such as
bullet points may not be.

This is not global convention (for making things 'conspicuous') and seems
peculiar to the US.

------
dankohn1
If you were going to design an optimal protocol from scratch today, you would
not make TCP/IP or HTTP (check the Referer header [0]) or lots of other
things. But we all use them to maximize interoperability.

For the same reason, you should almost certainly be using the MIT, Apache, or
GPL license to maximize the chance that your open source software can actually
be used by others. If you don't use a well known license, very few will invest
in the lawyer's time necessary to evaluate your custom license. (See the
problems caused by the tongue-in-cheek JSON license:
[http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-
license](http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-license) )

Use the dominant license for your project (e.g., MIT for Ruby Gems). For new
projects, I recommend [http://choosealicense.com](http://choosealicense.com)
to pick a license.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer)

------
opcvx
Am I the only one thinking that:

 _THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS..._ and continued

is incredibly important.

~~~
clinta
Does anyone know if the EU requirements for mandatory warranties on products
affect free software and the ability to distribute them without warranty?

~~~
nikanj
EU doesn't do punitice damages, you might just be entitled to get some or all
of your money back.

------
lectrick
Came here to highly recommend
[http://choosealicense.com/](http://choosealicense.com/) for new projects and
since you're probably not a lawyer. Clear explanations and guidance!

------
TallGuyShort
It is certainly not a minimalist approach, but I see a lot of people
discussing the various potential holes in the minimalist licenses anyway -
what about the Apache Software License 2.0? It's longer, but that's precisely
because lawyers have filled in a bunch of the ambiguities. In my opinion, it's
a more robust implementation of the spirit with which the BSD licenses were
written.

------
jkot
BSD license does not cover warranty. There is a risk author gets sued to
oblivion.

~~~
coob
has this ever actually happened?

~~~
jpollock
It seems to be coming up.

[http://www.hklaw.com/digitaltechblog/The-UCC-and-Software-
Co...](http://www.hklaw.com/digitaltechblog/The-UCC-and-Software-Contracts-
Recent-Developments-02-18-2011/)

It looks like it ends up being decided on whether or not the software is a
good (covered by a warranty) or a service.

------
adamtj
I don't understand the purpose of these extreme licenses. If you don't want to
restrict the usage of your software in any way, why not place it in the public
domain?

As I understand it, the point of owning something is to restrict what others
can do with it. Some people want that. For example, some people choose to own
the software they write so they can license it under the GPL. They want
restrict my freedom to limit what others can do with any modifications I might
make. If that's what they want, then retaining ownership makes sense.

If you _really_ don't want to restrict others in any way, why maintain
ownership? Why take on the risk of liability, or go to the bother of
disclaiming it? It's software, so giving it to the public won't deprive you of
its use.

But then, I am not a lawyer. Am I wrong? Are there downsides?

~~~
jdietrich
Dedicating a work to the public domain is legally very ambiguous and varies
globally; Some jurisdictions do not allow a creator to relinquish their moral
rights. Permissive licenses are simply a way of unambiguously stating that a
work may be used freely. Permissive licenses also provide important
protections to the author, as liability is not necessarily waived by
relinquishing a claim to copyright.

As the Zen of Python says, explicit is better than implicit.

------
tsavola
The 1-Clause BSD License seems to be similar to the Boost Software License
([http://opensource.org/licenses/BSL-1.0](http://opensource.org/licenses/BSL-1.0)).
I think it's a pretty good fit for foundation libraries.

------
johntaitorg
My own license is a more family-friendly variant of the WTFPL:
[http://www.johntait.org/webhelp-
mobile/WYLPL.html](http://www.johntait.org/webhelp-mobile/WYLPL.html)

~~~
ExpiredLink
Everyone should write their own license. This will increase freedom and
democracy.

~~~
opcvx
How will specifically writing your own license increase freedom and
democracy??

What everyone should do is _choose a license_.

~~~
huxley
The parent's comment is dripping with sarcasm

~~~
Mithaldu
Sarcasm is a highly inefficient mode of communication and should be avoided as
much as possible.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
It's inefficient if your assumptions about the audience are wrong. If you know
your audience, sarcasm is highly effective, high-density mode of
communication.

~~~
Mithaldu
Got it, only with close friends and family.

~~~
ExpiredLink
Only with intelligent people.

------
kayamon
[http://www.unlicense.org](http://www.unlicense.org) is the only civilized
thing to be using these days.

