![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
OSI agreed to SPDX's precedent and switched to calling it "Zero-Clause BSD".
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.78 ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that there is a wikipedia article for CC0 and for WTFPL, would it be a good idea to have one for Unlicense (currently a redirect here)
-- Harry Wood ( talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Some open points of the WP article:
While copyright is legally recognized and protected at an international level, it is not the same for the "public domain equivalent license", despite the latter means the opposite of the copyright and thus stays at an equal logic level. The risk is the commercial strategy to use a long-term free license just to introduce a brand and the subsequent copyright fees. it would be a major risk for the lot of derived works by uninterested volunteers of the truth. Philosopher81sp ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In the "Licenses" section,
[note 2] begins with In the above bar-chart I have counted GPL and its different versions as one family
, but there is no such chart in the article.
91.129.99.65 (
talk)
21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the “Unlicense” is merely a PD dedication, it lacks a fallback licence (it has an attempt at that which is worded so badly that it fails (“In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain.” is the absence of a licence). mirabilos ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
OSI agreed to SPDX's precedent and switched to calling it "Zero-Clause BSD".
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.78 ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that there is a wikipedia article for CC0 and for WTFPL, would it be a good idea to have one for Unlicense (currently a redirect here)
-- Harry Wood ( talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Some open points of the WP article:
While copyright is legally recognized and protected at an international level, it is not the same for the "public domain equivalent license", despite the latter means the opposite of the copyright and thus stays at an equal logic level. The risk is the commercial strategy to use a long-term free license just to introduce a brand and the subsequent copyright fees. it would be a major risk for the lot of derived works by uninterested volunteers of the truth. Philosopher81sp ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In the "Licenses" section,
[note 2] begins with In the above bar-chart I have counted GPL and its different versions as one family
, but there is no such chart in the article.
91.129.99.65 (
talk)
21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the “Unlicense” is merely a PD dedication, it lacks a fallback licence (it has an attempt at that which is worded so badly that it fails (“In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain.” is the absence of a licence). mirabilos ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)