Hacker News Reader

This is specifically addressed as not a solution in the article.

For example MIT, one of the most permissive licenses there is, still requires you to include the MIT license and copyright notice "in all copies or substantial portions of the Software".

View on HN

You might be one of the people that down-voted my submission. This is probably a language problem, I don't think the original MIT license is a permissive license at all in this case.

In the open source space, the term “permissive license” is well understood to mean licenses like MIT and Apache2 and CC-BY, which allow you to do whatever you like with the work so long as you acknowledge the author and license terms.

It sounds like you meant something more like a public domain dedication like CC0, which is about the only way you can go more permissive past the likes of MIT/Apache2/CC-BY.

Also, CC0 etc. are not really called "permissive licenses", because they explicitly waive away any and all rights a license would entail. In the same way "off" isn't a TV channel.

Creative commons specifically calls CC0 an "alternative to our licenses" [1]

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...

Or zero-clause BSD and ISC. Although both are generally discouraged and EU advise on using MIT instead, which we now end up with the acknowledgement problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com