9 ms·

A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and header

A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and headers polluting your program), morally irreproachable, and it gets the job done (only people who are ridiculously obsessed with legal papers will not be able to use your software). The only problem is that if your software becomes somehow well-known, you'll be bugged to no end to release it into any license, and you will need to develop an anti-spam filter to automatically delete these mails.

burntsushi 6y ago
Yes, well, I have many software projects that are well-known, so I am cursed with a good problem to have. I therefore must balance my ideology with pragmatism. I was a little coy above. I said that I "release my code into the public domain to the extent possible." In practice, I dual license my code under the UNLICENSE (public domain, effectively) and the MIT. I do this because the UNLICENSE is unsuitable either because people are too risk averse for it or because public domain is for one reason or another not recognized in their jurisdiction. I didn't elaborate on this in my original comment because it's not really pertinent. I think. But yes, I can't put code out there without a license because I ultimately want people to use it. And I've made the mistake of using a license that people don't like to use before (the WTFPL). You do indeed get bugged quite a bit.
ziml77 6y ago
In the US, releasing code without a license means that the code is automatically subject to standard copyright. By the time that expires, no one will even be able to run the code anymore.
- enriquto 6y ago
  No one who believes in US laws, that is.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Not at all! In 90% of legal systems copyright applies automatically and not having a license makes your software closed source by default. The concept of copyright existed long before software licenses and long before the (c) symbol. It often applies automatically if you sing a song in a park, scribble an article on a napkin, paint a giraffe on your car - no matter how "casual" your artwork might seem.

burntsushi 6y ago

Yes, well, I have many software projects that are well-known, so I am cursed with a good problem to have. I therefore must balance my ideology with pragmatism. I was a little coy above. I said that I "release my code into the public domain to the extent possible." In practice, I dual license my code under the UNLICENSE (public domain, effectively) and the MIT. I do this because the UNLICENSE is unsuitable either because people are too risk averse for it or because public domain is for one reason or another not recognized in their jurisdiction. I didn't elaborate on this in my original comment because it's not really pertinent. I think. But yes, I can't put code out there without a license because I ultimately want people to use it. And I've made the mistake of using a license that people don't like to use before (the WTFPL). You do indeed get bugged quite a bit.

ziml77 6y ago

In the US, releasing code without a license means that the code is automatically subject to standard copyright. By the time that expires, no one will even be able to run the code anymore.

enriquto 6y ago
No one who believes in US laws, that is.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

Not at all! In 90% of legal systems copyright applies automatically and not having a license makes your software closed source by default. The concept of copyright existed long before software licenses and long before the (c) symbol. It often applies automatically if you sing a song in a park, scribble an article on a napkin, paint a giraffe on your car - no matter how "casual" your artwork might seem.