3 ms·

I thought it was the opposite; there are some weird legal subtleties to placing things in the "public domain" in some parts of the world, so I thought people wr

I thought it was the opposite; there are some weird legal subtleties to placing things in the "public domain" in some parts of the world, so I thought people wrote statements like in the GP comment to avoid having to use that language at all, and share their code in the least encumbered way possible. I wonder whether there's a better way to express it. E.g. "if you see this code, I automatically grant to you a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to do whatever you want with it, including re-mixing it, re-distributing it under any license you want, or anything else you might think of." Or is this _worse_? Any lawyers in the room? :)

pmiller2 6y ago
This is my understanding as well. IIRC, copyright attaches automatically upon creation, and there's no way to disclaim all intellectual property rights under the Berne Convention. I suppose one could theoretically release something anonymously, but that technically would just be a copyrighted work with an unknown author. As far as code goes, what's wrong with the MIT license? Although the WTFPL may have been a joke at first, it is substantially similar to your suggestion. It says, in full: DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. The WTFPL is recognized as a valid open source license: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/ http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/
- Athas 6y ago
  The WTFPL is "recognized" in the sense that several Linux distributions ship software released under it. I don't think it has been "recognized" in boring legal terms by any of the organisations that we normally trust to do such things (FSF or OSI). Apparently Bradley Kuhn of the FSF made an unofficial remark that it's a free software license (and I would agree), but clearly being a free license in spirit and philosophy is not the same as being recognized in a legal context. Have any of the paranoid companies like Google and Microsoft used WTFPL software for anything? I wouldn't recommend using WTFPL unless the point is specifically to make life harder for corporations (which I think is a totally valid thing to do).
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > I wouldn't recommend using WTFPL unless the point is specifically to make life harder for corporations (which I think is a totally valid thing to do). The same effect seems to be obtained by using the AGPL. Funnily enough, the two licenses at the "extreme ends" of free software elicit exactly the same kind of corporate panic. I always hesitate between these two for my works.

pmiller2 6y ago

This is my understanding as well. IIRC, copyright attaches automatically upon creation, and there's no way to disclaim all intellectual property rights under the Berne Convention. I suppose one could theoretically release something anonymously, but that technically would just be a copyrighted work with an unknown author. As far as code goes, what's wrong with the MIT license? Although the WTFPL may have been a joke at first, it is substantially similar to your suggestion. It says, in full: DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. The WTFPL is recognized as a valid open source license: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/ http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

Athas 6y ago
The WTFPL is "recognized" in the sense that several Linux distributions ship software released under it. I don't think it has been "recognized" in boring legal terms by any of the organisations that we normally trust to do such things (FSF or OSI). Apparently Bradley Kuhn of the FSF made an unofficial remark that it's a free software license (and I would agree), but clearly being a free license in spirit and philosophy is not the same as being recognized in a legal context. Have any of the paranoid companies like Google and Microsoft used WTFPL software for anything? I wouldn't recommend using WTFPL unless the point is specifically to make life harder for corporations (which I think is a totally valid thing to do).
- enriquto 6y ago
  > I wouldn't recommend using WTFPL unless the point is specifically to make life harder for corporations (which I think is a totally valid thing to do). The same effect seems to be obtained by using the AGPL. Funnily enough, the two licenses at the "extreme ends" of free software elicit exactly the same kind of corporate panic. I always hesitate between these two for my works.