Problem with unlicense

[davidhedlund]

Q: Is a software distributed under Unlicense free software?

Answer by Richard Stallman: "In countries which allow software to be released into the public domain,
this would do so. In other countries, maybe not.

I reject their philisophy, however."

[FiloSottile]

RMS disliking a license is not a "problem" per se. Actually he strikes a very clear distinction between free software and open source, that not everybody embrace.

The point of using a dedication instead of just writing "Public Domain" is indeed to address the jurisdictions that do not recognize that:

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

Also, he is not a lawyer (as I am not) and says a generic "maybe not".

So, I'm closing this unless you can point specific issues with that dedication we are not aware of.

(If instead you'd like to discuss changing the licence completely, sorry if I missed your point)

[davidhedlund]

True that. I just wanted to be informative, thats all.

[FiloSottile]

Thanks for taking the trouble! 😃 (I didn't want to sound harsh at all, it's only late at night over here)

So, do you agree on closing?

[davidhedlund]

On 2014-02-08 04:11, Filippo Valsorda wrote:

Thanks for taking the trouble! 😃 (I didn't want to sound harsh
at all, it's only late at night over here)

So, do you agree on closing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2344 (comment).

I thought I allready did that. =)