4 ms·
I'm easy-going about this. I want anybody to be able to copy and modify the code, but not claim credit for inventing it. - Mark Overton
by MarkOverton 7y ago
I'm easy-going about this. I want anybody to be able to copy and modify the code, but not claim credit for inventing it.
- Mark Overton
- cyphar 7y agoAll copyright licenses (except CC0) require attribution for the work in all copies (verbatim and derivative). Please just use something like MIT, BSD, or Apache-2.0 (or the GPL family if that's your preference) which have clearly understood legal language and are known free software licenses. Personally I would never use or depend on code that has a license its author wrote themselves. It's just too risky and other people will be less inclined to use whatever project I wrote that uses the weirdly-licensed code.
- earenndil 7y ago> All copyright licenses (except CC0) require attribution for the work in all copies (verbatim and derivative) Boost licence Unlicense WTFPL
- cyphar 7y agoBoost requires attribution in the source form (you can't remove the copyright notice from the source repo when redistributing). The second paragraph of the license: > The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. It's similar to MIT or Apache-2.0 in that respect. As for Unlicensed and WTFPL, sure they're both effectively the same as CC0 (though I would personally be cautious about removing copyright notices from a WTFPL codebase).
- MarkOverton 7y agoI've changed the license to Apache version 2.0. Thanks for suggesting it!
- dchest 7y agoThank you!