Good find. At first glance, it also appears to be the shortest OSI-approved license too.
I’m kind of surprised this is approved. How did OSI manage to interpret “usage” to also allow modification, distribution, and reselling? Being short is not in itself a good thing.
How is “usage of the works is permitted” unclear?
Well, the MIT license says “use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell”. For some reason they thought that saying you have permission to use the software wasn’t enough. So I thought it was common to interpret “usage” in the most narrow sense, which does not include the other rights listed by other licenses.
I assume I’m not writing anything you don’t already know; but, for anyone reading who doesn’t know, a holder of a copyright gets a limited set of exclusive rights. Those rights are “exclusive” in that the rest of us could use the work to do certain things; but, we aren’t permitted to, except with the copyright holder’s permission.
This license gives permission.
The MIT license might be— strictly speaking— a more limited license?