Would you consider changing to ISC? It's pretty much the same level of permissiveness as CC0/PD, but at least is a "license" ... legally, it's still copyrighted automatically, and one cannot waive those rights except by license... even a license that does waive all rights on the work and derivatives... at least that's how it's been explained to me in the past.

That's not true. You have certain copyrights after creating a work. You can license these rights or dedicate them to public domain. Public domain dedication is not licensing.

As I said, I can put any license to my work of porting the code and creating high-level code, but the original work, which TweetNaCl.js is a derivative of, is still under public domain — with a statement on its home page:

TweetNaCl is a self-contained public-domain C library, so it can easily be integrated into applications.

Thus your legal department, if they find this out will still be left with handing "public domain".

"license" : "SEE LICENSE IN COPYING.txt"

I can do this, this will also solve npm warning.

@dchest sorry, updated my comment with the PR... would dual-licensing, or PD + ISC as described in the PR work?

I wonder if one can fork a repo as a private person and then change the license in his fork to whatever the legal team wants and use that fork.

That would require going through and updating a chain of 4 upstream dependencies...

It's not impossible, walked through that on a deeply nested bug a couple years ago, but it wasn't fun.

@anri-asaturov upstream npm modules?

@anri-asaturov probably you can fool a legal team with a fork, but the original problem is not solved: if they don't want public domain code, the original work is still in public domain, and thus they don't want your derivative. This is why it's pointless for me to dual-license it.

@dchest honestly, I'm not sure if it's that it's public domain, or that npm doesn't recognize the license, so it shows up as no license... in either case, they probably didn't dig deeper, and I'm several layers removed from the decision makers on this... part of this is speculation.. my guess is a permissive license (dual license) would be enough to get through this for myself, and most others... I don't think they've actually looked at it as far as I have.

I get it... it's stupid, and they should have let it through, in all reality... this isn't even for redistribution, it's for an automated testing tool on a project... In order to pull through, all modules are deployed (specific versions) from an internal npm server, with only approved modules... :-(

Let's try this:

cd9f8e4

if you're okay with this, I'll publish to npm.

I'm willing to give it a try.. :-)

Good, published v0.14.1. Please let us know how it goes :)