Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> the most open source of the open source licenses

What does that mean?




The least restrictions on what you can do with it. It was the closest to public domain we could find among the major licenses.


Check out the 0BSD license: https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html

It's even more permissive. It doesn't require preserving copyright notices and including a copy of the license with source code forms, like the boost license does.

I'm not a lawyer, but the license uses the same text as the ISC license, but with the text imposing restrictions removed. So I think it should be as legally valid as the ISC license (again, I'm not a lawyer).

The problem with the boost license is it's pretty specific on "works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." being allowed to be redistributed without including a license, so if I was making an interpreted language, or something that would embed it's own source code in the users code (eg a template library or something), then I don't think the boost license would allow them to redistribute that derived work, whereas 0BSD would.

The license is listed on OSI's page as the "Free Public License" for some reason https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 , but the text is essentially the same.

Here's the whole 0BSD license text:

Copyright (C) DATE by AUTHOR

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

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.


> I don't think the boost license would allow them to redistribute that derived work

That clause is only about distributing without the copyright notice. If you have any doubts, just include the copyright notice and you can redistribute it.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.


Of note, the Boost license only requires the copyright statement to be included when distributed in source form-- that's distinct from the MIT license and two-clause BSD, which are otherwise very similar but require the copyright statement to be included in any form (binary or source).


That's right. We didn't want to require users to include the copyright in the binary.

Another advantage Boost has is it is "corporate lawyer approved", meaning the license has never been an issue for any corporation wanting to use D.


Then you mean "most permissive."


Is CC0 not closer to being public domain? My understanding is that placing a work into public domain is actually non-trivial, so if that's really what you want to do you should use a license explicitly geared toward that:

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

I'm guessing that's not what you wanted, because when something is truly public domain then you lose any ability to control it whatsoever, but it is what you asked for.


Unfortunately CC0 is (still) not listed as an "approved OSI license"[0], so it is off the table for many folks

0: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical


If that is really your definition, wouldn't public domain be the "most open source" license?


Public domain has legal problems, such as in some countries it is not recognized.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: