Yes, it does require that, even for binaries. MIT and [23]-clause BSD are probably the most often violated FOSS licenses because most people aren't aware of that.

BTW, that requirement is the reason why Boost, 1-clause BSD and 0BSD licenses are a thing.

You can also use CC0 for software to dedicate something into the public domain.

CC0 has a mildly problematic patents clause, so if you want to avoid questions about that you might prefer 0BSD. There is a longer explanation on the OSI FAQ https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

BSD is unclear about patents. How is that better than explicitly stating that the license is just about copyright?

Or use https://unlicense.org/

In many countries, you can't release your works into the public domain. You can only license them. Thus you should generally avoid CC0.

CC0 is explicitly designed with such legal issues in mind and includes a license for legislations that do not have direct way of putting works to PD

> If the waiver isn’t effective for any reason, then CC0 acts as a license from the affirmer granting the public an unconditional, irrevocable, non exclusive, royalty free license to use the work for any purpose.

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#How_does_it_wo...

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...

Alright thanks for pointing that out, I misremembered it then.

The point of CC0 is that it puts things in the public domain if possible, and provides the most liberal license if not. See the "public license fallback" - https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

Yes, 0BSD is the generally recommended no obligations version https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html

I wonder if this could end up taking more space than the code itself…