I think there is a three-clause BSD license now popular without the advertising clause. Adek336 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to there being a three-clause BSD license as mentioned by Adek336, there is also a 2 line BSD-like license called the ISC license. The text of that license can be found here. IMO, this is the closest you can get to Public Domain in countries that don't honor the Public Domain concept. --quok 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- You could scrap the part "provided that this copyright clause...", which could get into the way if you want to use a modified version of the code under a different license. But nice find nevertheless.
- I admit I had forgotten about this page... -- Solar 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely certain if you can scrap the "provided that this copyright clause..." part from the license, since the text makes reference to "the author" and without the copyright clause you'd have no way of knowing who the author is. Perhaps if you just included an "authored by" line? I'm not sure how keeping the copyright clause could get into the way of using that code in a modified form, even in a proprietary project. The ISC license doesn't allow you to relicense the original work (which you'd get with real public domain), but you're free to put any modifications to the code under a different license, like the GPL. As pointed out in this article, you can take BSD and ISC licensed code out of a (L)GPL project and not be affected by the (L)GPL. Provided of course that you only took the original BSD/ISC licensed code and none of the extensions. Also, the ISC license does not require the source be made available. I also believe the "and/or distribute" part makes ISC licensed code safe to use in a proprietary project where redistribution is not allowed. Of course, IANAL. --quok 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps the entire thread should be linked to. All the posts about the GCC header files and the GPL exception should be summarized and included in this page though, not just my post. I'd do it myself but this page really seems to be Solar's baby even if he did forget about it. :) --quok 06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)