Added description of unlicense

[JeniT]

This fixes #9. I think I've got the description right: doesn't seem to be appropriate for general copyright or cover database right, and isn't listed as OSI approved.

[mlinksva]

It isn't listed on http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ either. But it seems wrong to list compliance as false. It is pretty clearly compliant with the OSD and OKD, it just hasn't been formally vetted by the stewards of either. Maybe the proper value is empty string for both fields?

[JeniT]

I think it isn't compliant with OSI: they generally disapprove of public domain dedications, according to http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain. On the other hand, as you say it does seem compliant with the Open Definition. It wasn't clear to me whether "is_(okd|osi)_compliant" means "is (OKD|OSI) approved"?

[mlinksva]

The haven't approved any, but the reason they didn't approve CC0 is because it explicitly rules out any patent grant, not because it attempts to be a public domain dedication. I think it'd be a huge stretch to say the Unlicense is not OSD compliant, even though it hasn't been approved.

I agree _compliant is unclear. It might be better as _approved. @rgrp might have comments on whether that would break anything.

[mlinksva]

Looking at this again, Unlicense is pretty clearly OKD and OSD compliant, but also clearly not approved by either body.

IMO _compliant really ought be changed to _approved. I'll open an issue for that #16

[jonschlinkert]

Perhaps you should add independent as a new field. e.g.

independent: true licenses may be compliant, but are not officially approved...

Doing this would be cleaner and would remove the need to debate the details anytime these kinds of licenses crop up.