141–150 of 185 posts
I wish people would get together to agree upon a public domain alike software license that everyone finds acceptable. 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?
+GOAWAY
This license must never be enforced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blue Oak Council, a gaggle of savvy open licensing lawyers, published a model permissive software license: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 There's a brief write-up here: https://blueoakcouncil.org/2019/03/06/model All of us have direct experience with both OSI and FSF license processes. We have no desire to deal with them again. Even for a thoroughly noncontroversial permissive license. I'm executive directo…
From the license text: > You must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this software from you, with or without changes, also gets the text of this license or a link to https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 . To me this sounds like a viral public domain, so in a sense less permissive than MIT & co. If I modify the work but still have to put the text of this license when publishing it, the modified/de…
How does that follow? Compare:
MIT:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
BSD: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blue Oak Council, a gaggle of savvy open licensing lawyers, published a model permissive software license: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 There's a brief write-up here: https://blueoakcouncil.org/2019/03/06/model All of us have direct experience with both OSI and FSF license processes. We have no desire to deal with them again. Even for a thoroughly noncontroversial permissive license. I'm executive directo…
From the license text: > You must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this software from you, with or without changes, also gets the text of this license or a link to https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 . To me this sounds like a viral public domain, so in a sense less permissive than MIT & co. If I modify the work but still have to put the text of this license when publishing it, the modified/de…
"Permission is hereby granted [to do so-and-so] subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
If you're shipping MIT-licensed software (or anything derived from MIT-licensed software) without also shipping a copy of the license, then you're not in compliance with the license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is `This work is public domain.` insufficient?
No, no, no, no. Nope. That's enough in US but never enough (like, legally impossible) in Europe or parts of Asia (that's why CC0 has a fallback permissive license).
I've been frustrated that there exists no lawyer-verified, internationally-viable way to permanently waive all claims and rights to things (software or otherwise) I publish, and to assert that those rights will not be later reclaimed (whether by me, parties representing me, or heirs or successors who might claim to have inherited my rights). CC0's biggest issues for me are that, one, it explicitly does not waive righ…
The term causes enough confusion to be retired, but lawyers do love their stock phrases.
It's annoying that there's no internationally recognised way of saying "No, I (and my inheritors) are not going to sue you for using this source."
But you can’t speak for other people and your inheritors can do whatever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it a joke?
For WTFPL, if a parody counts as a joke, the author's own words: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1490... (The author of the version 2, to be exact, but this version is also the widespread version of WTFPL anyway.)
The way people and organizations stand in the way of public domain releases is beyond rude to the point of genuine evil. My code is just code. It should be possible to let all others read it without obligation. There must be some way to restrain this relentless desire to cocoon everything in layers of legal entanglement. It is just code and I as the author desire others to be able to read it. This is not a crazy plot…
I am largely ignorant to license law so forgive this probably basic question If the idea of public domain is clearly established in law should it not be enough to have a license file that simply reads. Everything in this repository is public domain, all contributions to this repository are public domain. Obviously if someone were to submit code stolen from a project under another license it would create an issue. But…
I wish people would get together to agree upon a public domain alike software license that everyone finds acceptable. 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?
That’s the 0BSD. I called it the Free Public License when submitting to OSI, but we changed it to 0BSD because Landley had apparently come up with the same license a few years before me.