21–30 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it should be more explicit: > No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202
I mean sure. If you want to do it by the books, but the whole thing is a joke.
There's a long tradition of licenses with a rebellious spirit, either deliberately or incidentally drafted in such a way that makes them hard to interpret. Before this "GLWTPL" there was the WTFPL, the JSON license, etc. People who choose such a license should be aware that they are making downstream adoption of their product more difficult. (For some authors that is surely the point.)
How does do-whatever-you-want make adoption more difficult?
The JSON license has made a lot of lawyers a lot of money.
Another joke license... somewhat funny, but I dearly hope, no one considers using it for any code. If you think, your code should be thrown away, please don't spam hosts like Github with it. But if you don't want to throw away your code, and in my experience, most code has a value, then please publish it under one of the well-known licenses. I think it is one of the great features of Github, that on creation of a rep…
Stop making new, stupid licenses. https://www.opensource.org
Plenty of good licenses there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does do-whatever-you-want make adoption more difficult?
Serious answer: Most companies big enough to care about this sort of thing have a list of approved open source licenses, which their lawyers have read and decided they're ok with. Using a license not on that list means you need to talk to the lawyers. That usually takes a few days of back and forth emails.
There's a long tradition of licenses with a rebellious spirit, either deliberately or incidentally drafted in such a way that makes them hard to interpret. Before this "GLWTPL" there was the WTFPL, the JSON license, etc. People who choose such a license should be aware that they are making downstream adoption of their product more difficult. (For some authors that is surely the point.)
Regardless of how amazing your code is, you look like a kid when you need to tag your code with one of these joke licenses. It loses a ton of credibility in the corporate world where open source is taken very seriously.
Another joke license... somewhat funny, but I dearly hope, no one considers using it for any code. If you think, your code should be thrown away, please don't spam hosts like Github with it. But if you don't want to throw away your code, and in my experience, most code has a value, then please publish it under one of the well-known licenses. I think it is one of the great features of Github, that on creation of a rep…
Is this recent? I can't remember being able to do it last time I created a project, which was a few years ago.