mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

336K
active users

mcc

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org I don't. If I did want that, I would simply use the MIT or 2-clause BSD, which to my read unambiguously enforce this. The reason I don't want it is it would be difficult for the code recipient to comply with.

What I want is 1-clause BSD where both I and the code recipient know for a fact that if source is transformed into something other than "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", no attribution requirements apply when distributing that.

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org Quirks, since you asked:

- I like zlib's rule of: "The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software". I'd like that to apply. However, I suspect it applies even without a specific legal notice.

- If source is distributed (.js embedded in a web page; .zip embedded in a exe) I want it to be sufficient to keep the license notice *in the source* (not docs/interactive notices). But I think this is implicit in 1-clause bsd.