Hacker News Reader

Comment by samsquire | Hacker News Reader

I use the zero clause licence for my all my work because it just removes all the overhead of using my code.

I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included, subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence. (Relicenced)

Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the licence? I am curious?

View on HN

It was mainly as a joke, but I wanted to remove the attribution clauses, they just seemed dumb for a single-file javascript library that was probably going to be minimized anyway, where are you supposed to stick the license?

Some companies are careful to include all the libraries' licenses when minimizing JavaScript code. There are tools to do it. But it seems wasteful, so it's great that you removed the requirement.

I'll bet $10 that the compressed size shows no discernible difference.

Thank you for this!

It lifts a significant burden for people/projects/organizations who want to release software while complying with all license obligations.

IANAL, but yep, that sounds about right, the more restrictive license then applies. Of course, anyone can use the original, BSD copy of the code, without the restrictions.

I would have hope that anybody who uses your code doesn't want to keep it a secret, because it would be good if people use the same common base code and changes can benefit everyone.

Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com