-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reason for going from MIT to Unlicense? #5
Comments
Just what the stacktrace.js maintainer said. stacktracejs/stackframe#13 (comment) |
Thank you for the clarification |
Would you consider dual-licensing it under the MIT License and the Unlicense? My company tries to steer clear of the Unlicense. |
Final conclusion: 99503b7
No. |
Thanks for the quick response. I understand your point of view, but others have argued (and our lawyers at least agree enough to make it off limits) that the Unlicense causes more issues than it solves.
Would you consider using the CC0 license? Apparently that's "better" at being a public domain dedication since it has a better fall back clause. We'd really like to use your code. Also, if you're interested the OSI has a couple FAQs that talk about the issues associated with public domain dedications. (https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain) |
Click the link in #5 (comment) and check it more carefully. |
Thanks! |
I am just curious, what was the reason to make 2589d34 happen?
I was about to request changing to MIT license from Unlicense, but instead opened this question...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: