[BorisTheBrave]

MIT is already an extremely permissive license. Seems kinda mean to complain that something is merely 90% good because you are comparing to something 99% good.

What sort of problems do you envisage having with an MIT license that public domain would fix?

[otachack]

After reading SQLite's page on their public domain approach they seem to go through great lengths to make sure it stays public domain.

https://sqlite.org/copyright.html

Including having their closed contributors sign affidavits and stored in a physical location. This may be what OP is referring to.

Compare that with an MIT license with no "hardening" like affidavits so that it's easy to mutate to another license type, I can see their point.

Interesting stuff since I never knew this "public domain" approach before!

[easton]

Their license text has always been my favorite (well, perhaps except for the original JSON license):

* The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing:

* May you do good and not evil.

* May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.

* May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

edit: thanks for the correction about the jquery license.

[ZeroClickOk]

do you have the link for the original JSON license? It looks remains only "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."

[easton]

That's what I was talking about. Crawford said in a talk he had to make an amended licenses for corporations (namely, IBM), who had lawyers that needed to be able to get around the evil restriction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA

[adzm]

What is the original JQuery license?

[dangoor]

Likely referring to the [JSON license](https://www.json.org/license.html) and not the jQuery license. The JSON license has this problematic (for many businesses) phrase: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

[skissane]

So, if you include N different MIT-licensed libraries in your app, you have to remember to ship N different third party copyright licenses in your binary (or documentation shipping with the binary). And you need to keep an eye out if they change – if you add or remove a third party library, or if a third party library adds the name of a new contributor to its copyright notice in a newer version.

It gets even worse when you consider that there are MIT-like licenses, which can have fundamentally the same terms as MIT, but with slightly different wording. Then you can have to ship multiple variant license texts too.

Public domain (and public domain-equivalent licenses) you don't have to worry about this, because there is no requirement to include copyright notices or copy of license text.

I'm not saying you shouldn't credit people whose contributions you use, but you can make that a non-legal expectation of courtesy rather than a make-work legal requirement.