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?
The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
31–40 of 185 posts
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#32I 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?
[deleted]
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#33I use it and will continue to use it because it most accurately reflects my intentions for my software. If some organization can't comply with it, it's worse for them. They should change, not me.
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#34Personally, I think the fact that we even have to talk about the suitability of Unlicense vs CC0 is evidence of how terribly stupid copyright law is. I wrote code, it isn't fancy or interesting and I make no money from it nor do I intend to, and I just want to let everyone know that I truly do not care at all what they do with it. Why is it so hard to let people know that they can use information in the natural way that information is used?
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#350BSD is nice as well. As a bonus, it's the only PD-equivalent license allowed in Google.
Good call. I had somehow quite forgotten about it, though I know I read all the N-clause BSD variants a decade or so ago. I’ve added a section at the end with that as an alternative recommendation.
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#36I 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?
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#37Why 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.
I don't. I don't want any license at all, I just want people to be able to use what I have written in a natural and completely bullshit-free legally unencumbered manner. Unfortunately, copyright law has forced me to declare this outright in what is, apparently, convoluted and tedious legalese.
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
By default copyright exists so by doing nothing you are copyrighting your work and preventing people who want to be in the legal clear from being able to use it (OSS games for example). 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.
I'm not pretending copyright doesn't exist, but I want other people to be able to interact with my work as if copyright and other forms of IP didn't exist.
There doesn't seem to be a perfect way to achieve this. The problem with CC0 (and I believe the reason OSI doesn't approve of it) is that it says:
> No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.
Whereas many licenses can be interpreted as an implied patent license[0]. I guess adding an additional declaration saying something like this could fix that:
> All trademark and patent rights associated with this work are permanently waived.
But I have no idea if that would work and it's frustrating that there is no simple way of opting out of intellectual 'property' ownership all together.
The closest, at least when it comes to software may be 0BSD considering large corporations like Google are willing to accept it.
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#39how does WTFPL compare to this?
Both are merely joke licenses.
Re: The Unlicense is an inferior license wrapped in an atrocious name
#40I 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?
isn't it cc0?