Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Web developers are reacting to htmx changing its license from the standard 2-clause BSD to the extremely permissive Zero-Clause BSD (0BSD), which allows essentially unrestricted use without even attribution. The project’s maintainer frames the move partly as a joke and partly as a way to remove legal friction for a tiny, minified JavaScript library, prompting debate over professionalism, corporate adoption, and the value of attribution. The change also revives broader arguments about permissive vs. copyleft licensing, the practical impact of licenses like GPL, MPL, and 0BSD on the software commons, and whether ultra-permissive terms effectively place code in the public domain.

License change rationale

  • Original poster of the commit used 0BSD for all work to remove overhead and believes it can be embedded into GPL projects and then relicensed under GPL.
  • HTMX maintainer says the change from 2-clause BSD to 0BSD was partly a joke and part of a social-media “ruse” about supposed Microsoft interest, but also had a practical motive: removing attribution requirements that feel pointless for a single-file, minified JS library.
  • Some commenters thank them, saying attribution removal meaningfully reduces compliance burden for organizations.

Properties of Zero-Clause BSD (0BSD)

  • Described as an extremely permissive, OSI-approved license, essentially like public domain but with standard legal verbiage.
  • Main difference vs MIT: MIT still requires preserving copyright and disclaimer; 0BSD does not require attribution at all.
  • Seen as useful where automatic inclusion into many projects would make attribution onerous (e.g., small runtime libraries, code snippets).
  • Compared to “public domain” declarations, 0BSD helps in jurisdictions where rights can’t simply be waived.
  • Related mention of MIT-0 as a similar “zero” license; some note lawyers prefer familiar-looking texts over novelty licenses.

Professionalism, social media, and adoption

  • One commenter criticizes the library’s “lack of professional seriousness” on social media and claims this influenced a choice of a more conventional stack.
  • Others respond that humor on an official account does not correlate with code quality, and that the technology and track record should matter more.
  • The maintainer explains using Twitter as a deliberately humorous but effective marketing channel, pointing to strong growth in stars and framework rankings as evidence of success.

Broader licensing philosophy

  • Some praise 0BSD as “good for the commons” because it removes friction.
  • Others argue that highly permissive licenses enable corporate free-riding and “enclosure” of the software commons, while strong copyleft (GPL/LGPL) is seen as too strict and scary for companies.
  • The Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) is discussed as a middle-ground: file-level copyleft that requires contributing improvements to the MPL-covered files, but is acknowledged as partially circumventable.

Legal and practical questions

  • Questions arise about whether 0BSD effectively makes HTMX “public domain”; answers imply it’s functionally close but legally more robust.
  • Conflicting replies appear on whether maintainers can relicense BSD-2–licensed contributions without explicit contributor permission; this remains unclear in the thread.