1. 19
  1.  

  2. 2

    Good find. At first glance, it also appears to be the shortest OSI-approved license too.

    1. 1

      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.

      1. 1

        How is “usage of the works is permitted” unclear?

        1. 1

          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.

          1. 1

            IANAL

            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?