The Unlicense VS MIT License

It's theoretically helpful to at least put in a no-warranties clause. But sqlite as maybe the most popular public domain project worldwide doesn't (instead having a blessing). I mostly settled on the Unlicense https://unlicense.org/ over just saying 'public domain' or 'CC0' as a simple text blob to paste in, and in the event of a significant contribution from someone else, there's a simple text blurb to ask them... - Source: Hacker News / about 2 months ago

No, you're confused, because this is confusing: https://unlicense.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicense So if something is unlicensed (no license) you would be correct, but if something is unlicensed (unlicensed licence) you would be incorrect.. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

CC0[0] would be the obvious one; spicier and less legalese alternatives that nonetheless amount to about the same thing include the Unlicense[1] and the Do What the Fuck You Want License[2] [0] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ [1] https://unlicense.org/ with some philosophical discussion at https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free [2] http://www.wtfpl.net/. - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

Interesting, looks like the Open Source Initiative decided to pull their endorsement of CC0 over the same clause. Apparently OSI decided to approve Unilicense as a public-domain equivalent license. Source: over 1 year ago

So its licensed on github under the Unlicenced License which TL:DR means anyone can modify it and publish it for any reason. Besides, I don't think a single line of code from the original FT UI mod is in my FT UI mod. At that point if you still consider it stealing, I don't know what to tell it, it only changes a single byte of code. Source: over 1 year ago

Question: Why do you choose LGPL-3.0? For many, of the most attractive features of SQLite is its license (or should I say lack thereof). I realise some people view public domain as legally problematic. I think the best answer for that is public-domain equivalent licenses such as 0BSD [0] or MIT-0 [1] – technically still copyrighted, but effectively not. (There are other, possibly more well-known options such as... - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago

There's also another OSI approved "zero" license called MIT-0 https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

Probably a MIT-0 header will make people less worried to use the code. Take a look at https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/ https://github.com/aws/mit-0. - Source: Hacker News / 5 months ago

There's even a variant of the license called 'MIT No Attribution License' that has this specific clause removed (just in case you aren't convinced that the clause does cover attribution): https://github.com/aws/mit-0. Source: 10 months ago