11–20 of 22 posts
The moment that hits 666, it ticks right on over to 667. People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long. Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.
The moment that hits 666, it ticks right on over to 667. People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long. Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.
> Well, although SPDX counts 665 licences, there really just 3 main kinds: > 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT) > 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence) > 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL) MIT requires attribution, doesn…
It's just weird that it has "Microsoft" in the name. Though I suppose not much weirder than MIT license being named after a University or BSD license being named after a University's Unix distribution.
Also even Microsoft doesn't use the MS-RL much anymore having standardized more on MPL where they use copyleft licenses and Apache License most everywhere else.
I'm a big fan of CC0. It's my go-to for any side projects I work on, for all kinds of reasons, but mostly just because I feel it minimizes economic deadweight loss by incurring zero additional transaction costs.
Those licenses let me say "This is open to the individual and small business, but not a mega corp" without actually needing to define a hard cut off.
Besides, it's not like most developers of FOSS software that use these have the time/money/energy to bother to sue over infringement anyway, so practically this is their main purpose.
I'm a big fan of CC0. It's my go-to for any side projects I work on, for all kinds of reasons, but mostly just because I feel it minimizes economic deadweight loss by incurring zero additional transaction costs.
CC0 wasn't intended for code and you can be hurt by liability/warranty issues. Creative Commons themselves suggest pairing it with an Unlicense or 0-Clause BSD. https://opensource.org/license/unlicense https://opensource.org/license/0bsd
Brb, dual licensing everything under 0BSD.
This may be a hot take, but I love the un-usable for business licenses and the fun multiple lowest-to-highest paid worker and ethical restrictions (No use in weapons, for example) licenses, but not for their direct restrictions but rather because almost no large business will ever want to touch them, but small players and individuals don't care. Those licenses let me say "This is open to the individual and small busi…
> Well, although SPDX counts 665 licences, there really just 3 main kinds: > 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT) > 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence) > 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL) MIT requires attribution, doesn…
The MS-RL is still the shortest, clearest copyleft license I'm aware of it. It is nearly as readable as the MIT. https://opensource.org/license/ms-rl-html It's just weird that it has "Microsoft" in the name. Though I suppose not much weirder than MIT license being named after a University or BSD license being named after a University's Unix distribution. Also even Microsoft doesn't use the MS-RL much anymore having s…
This part confuses me a bit, as the distinction between storing all the code in the same file versus dividing it into separate files is fairly arbitrary. What happens if you have 3 files in your project, one of which contains licensed code, and then zip them together into a single archive for distribution?