[Apologies for the previous half-mail sent in unforgivable error.]

Hi,

The author mentions a 'no-restrictions BSD' licence in addition to 
[0].  Could they mean 0BSD?  We could just use that.  It's in 
Guix.

jgart via Guix-patches via 写道：
> Should we add it?

Bizarrely, Debian did[1][2].  Debian is not our touchstone, but 
it's an excellent smoke test.

What they were smoking when they added that is not clear to me.

A quick search turned up only packages ‘dual’-licenced under 
another, actual licence that explicitly grants the required 
rights.

In such cases, presumably the joke licence is moot: the real one 
does all the work of not getting people sued.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: http://tunes.org/legalese/bugroff.html
[1]: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/