41–50 of 185 posts
I 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.
OK, they should change. Great. They won't, though, so your code won't be usable by them. If that's not a problem, then your code was never really relevant to this discussion. If that is a problem, then shoulds and woulds ain't gonna help.
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.
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.
I 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.
Imagine two people from a corporation having this conversation:
'Can we use this?'
'Yes, it is unlicensed'
'So we cannot, we don't license it'
'No, we can'
'But you said...'
and so on...
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?
Plus since everything is served over the internet these days unless a license includes AGPL-type clauses the alike requirement will not attach.
I 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.
But the article makes a good point: unlicensed means the opposite. Imagine two people from a corporation having this conversation: 'Can we use this?' 'Yes, it is unlicensed' 'So we cannot, we don't license it' 'No, we can' 'But you said...' and so on...
I 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.
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.
Personally it's a mix of principle and practicality. On principle I'd like to be able to put code up on Github, tell people they can use it however they like and to credit me if it suits them, but otherwise I don't want the copyright or any other associated responsibilities on it. And practically I have no ability to enforce the terms of any licence once the code is in public anyway, so why should I spend time engagi…
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?
0BSD? https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
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?
I'm not contributing to open source projects privately right now. But if I was publishing code on my own, I would probably make it actually unlicensed at first to keep my options open as much as possible. I would just put it somewhere and say: "here is code, you are technically able to look at it, but I am not giving you any permission". If somebody wants to use it and needs to follow copyright (for example in a comm…
I understand you wanting to keep your options as long as possible. I see three options for you:
- leave it without license and hope you will be able to license it as you want. Take no contributions. Have total freedom. Never accept contributors.
- pick any non public domain equivalent license and require all contributions to allow you to relicense their contributions in the future. When you change the license in the future the all previous version released under that license stay that way.
- pick a public domain equivalent license 0BSD preferably. All contributions under that license means you and their code and be relicensed by anybody including you. If you later decide to relicense you can do so without needing the contributors ok. Old versions stay in the public domain. Newer code (after relicensing doesn't).