www/license.html - third_party/toybox - Git at Google

 <html><head><title>Toybox License</title>
 <!--#include file="header.html" -->

 <h2>Toybox is released under the following "zero clause" BSD license:</h2>

 <blockquote>
 <p>Copyright (C) 2006 by Rob Landley &lt;rob@landley.net&gt;

 <p>Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
 purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.</p>

 <p>THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>The text of the above license is included in the file LICENSE in the source.</p>

 <h2>Why 0BSD?</h2>

 <p>As with <a href=https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>CC0</a>,
 <a href=http://unlicense.org>unlicense</a>, and <a href=http://wtfpl.net/>wtfpl</a>,
 the intent is to place the licensed material into the public domain,
 which after decades of FUD (such as the time OSI's ex-lawyer compared
 <a href=http://www.cod5.org/archive/>placing code into the public domain</a> to
 <a href=http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225>abandoning trash by the
 side of a highway</a>) is considered somehow unsafe. But if some random third
 party
 <a href=https://github.com/mkj/dropbear/blob/master/libtomcrypt/LICENSE>takes
 public domain code</a> and slaps <a href=http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gnuzip/gnuzip-25/gzip/gzip.c>some other license on it</a>, then it's fine.</p>

 <p>To work around this perception, the above license is a standard 2-clause BSD
 license <a href=https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25cb0ca9d418b33eb0dc5e7716ddc1e>minus the half sentence</a>
 requiring text copied verbatim into derived works. If 2BSD is
 ok, the 0BSD should be ok, despite being equivalent to placing code in the
 public domain.</p>

 <p>Modifying the license in this way avoids the hole android toolbox fell into where
 <a href=https://github.com/android/platform_system_core/blob/fd4c6b0a3a25921a9fe24691a695d715aecb6afe/toolbox/NOTICE>33 copies of BSD license text</a>
 were concatenated together when copyright dates changed, or the strange
 solution the busybox developers used to resolve tension between GPLv2's "no
 additional restrictions" and BSD's "you must include this large hunk of text"
 by sticking the two licenses at
 <a href=http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/networking/ping.c?id=887a1ad57fe978cd320be358effbe66df8a068bf>opposite ends of the file</a> and hoping nobody
 noticed.</a>
 <!--#include file="footer.html" -->
	<html><head><title>Toybox License</title>
	<!--#include file="header.html" -->

	<h2>Toybox is released under the following "zero clause" BSD license:</h2>

	<blockquote>
	<p>Copyright (C) 2006 by Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>

	<p>Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
	purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.</p>

	<p>THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
	WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
	MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
	ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
	WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
	ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
	OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.</p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>The text of the above license is included in the file LICENSE in the source.</p>

	<h2>Why 0BSD?</h2>

	<p>As with <a href=https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>CC0</a>,
	<a href=http://unlicense.org>unlicense</a>, and <a href=http://wtfpl.net/>wtfpl</a>,
	the intent is to place the licensed material into the public domain,
	which after decades of FUD (such as the time OSI's ex-lawyer compared
	<a href=http://www.cod5.org/archive/>placing code into the public domain</a> to
	<a href=http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225>abandoning trash by the
	side of a highway</a>) is considered somehow unsafe. But if some random third
	party
	<a href=https://github.com/mkj/dropbear/blob/master/libtomcrypt/LICENSE>takes
	public domain code</a> and slaps <a href=http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gnuzip/gnuzip-25/gzip/gzip.c>some other license on it</a>, then it's fine.</p>

	<p>To work around this perception, the above license is a standard 2-clause BSD
	license <a href=https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25cb0ca9d418b33eb0dc5e7716ddc1e>minus the half sentence</a>
	requiring text copied verbatim into derived works. If 2BSD is
	ok, the 0BSD should be ok, despite being equivalent to placing code in the
	public domain.</p>

	<p>Modifying the license in this way avoids the hole android toolbox fell into where
	<a href=https://github.com/android/platform_system_core/blob/fd4c6b0a3a25921a9fe24691a695d715aecb6afe/toolbox/NOTICE>33 copies of BSD license text</a>
	were concatenated together when copyright dates changed, or the strange
	solution the busybox developers used to resolve tension between GPLv2's "no
	additional restrictions" and BSD's "you must include this large hunk of text"
	by sticking the two licenses at
	<a href=http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/networking/ping.c?id=887a1ad57fe978cd320be358effbe66df8a068bf>opposite ends of the file</a> and hoping nobody
	noticed.</a>
	<!--#include file="footer.html" -->