11–20 of 185 posts
0BSD is nice as well. As a bonus, it's the only PD-equivalent license allowed in Google.
Arguably allowing your work to be used by anyone except Google is a feature not a bug.
how does WTFPL compare to this?
Why do people want public domain software licenses? Just use a proper licence and die at some point. End result is the same without the uncertainty.
0BSD is nice as well. As a bonus, it's the only PD-equivalent license allowed in Google.
Arguably allowing your work to be used by anyone except Google is a feature not a bug.
Why do people want public domain software licenses? Just use a proper licence and die at some point. End result is the same without the uncertainty.
The problem with most licenses is that they require that the license be distributed with the content that is licensed. I don't want to force people to do anything. I want it to be as if copyright doesn't exist.
The best you can do is watermark your art with CC0 and/or include the license or a link to it in the file metadata.
But pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work.
how does WTFPL compare to this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably allowing your work to be used by anyone except Google is a feature not a bug.
You publish open source code so that others can benefit from it, and if Google uses it maybe billions of people will benefit from it, so I disagree.
That'd mean:
* OSI approves it
* FSF approves it
* Google and other companies with large stakes in FOSS find it acceptable
* Github + Gitlab support it in their templates
Can we have that?
Nathan Myhrvold is already building a business plan around this license's faults. i.e. reversibility of grant in perpetuity.