4 ms·

Is there any license that I can place my code under, that truly does not stop anyone from using it, for any reason? What legalese would I need to tell bespoke l

Is there any license that I can place my code under, that truly does not stop anyone from using it, for any reason? What legalese would I need to tell bespoke legal systems that I want to revoke all rights, in any situation, to anything in that project? Is there a license project that fulfills that need? And I don’t mean the WTFPL: I mean a license that legally stands and does what it is intended to do, and that would satisfy even the most conservative of lawyers that it’s safe to use?

doublepg23 4y ago
Is there anything wrong with MIT or the more succinct ISC license? Is the attribution portion a sticking point?
- sodality2 4y ago
  Yeah, I mean a license without any strings attached at all. I’m just curious if one exists already.
  - mlinksva 4y ago
    Yes, 0BSD is ISC with ", provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies" removed. MIT-0 is MIT with "subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" removed. Unlicense is a more ideological statement.
  - occamrazor 4y ago
    Other comments provide links to licenses similar to what you are looking for. But I’d like to argue that the MIT/BSD2 licenses are _better_ than a “no strings attached“ license, even when one wants to give the broadest permissions to use and modify a piece of code. The obligation to preserve attribution and license is as unobtrusive as possible, and at the same time gives assurance that the code is actually properly licensed. The typical corporate entity will not trust a piece of code with no license and would have to track copyright and license in some database. Having the same information in the source files makes things easier.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Also you have to be careful, because in some countries, attribution isnt waived unless you explicitly say. I think in some countries you arent even allowed to waive attribution. IANAL
spiffytech 4y ago
The Unlicense is the closest that I know of. It attempts to release the software into the public domain. Since not all jurisdictions have the notion of public domain, it also explicitly waives copyright (though it doesn't mention patents).
- cjbprime 4y ago
  I don't have any insight into how effective Unlicense is, but to give an idea of how complicated this is: just as many jurisdictions don't let you place things into a Public Domain, or even have the legal concept of one, some (I think France?) also don't let you just waive your authorial rights. I think a full copyright license is okay, though.
  - tremon 4y ago
    It's usually the moral rights (separate but related to the economic part of copyright) that can't be waived: > In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe) IIRC, moral rights are also always tied to the individual and not to the employer or organization. In NL, these moral rights include the following properties: > even after transferring their copyright, the original creator retains the rights to: > 1a. oppose publication of the work without attribution > 1b. oppose publication of the work under a different name than their own (applies to both the name of the work and the name of the creator) > 1c. oppose modifications of the work > 1d. oppose any kind of mutilation of disfiguration of the work, or modifications that would negatively affect the perception of the work or its creator > Of these rights, 1a can be waived entirely; 1b and 1c can be waived only with regards to the name of the work, not its creator; right 1d remains the privilege of the creator (or any designated heir) for the entire duration of the copyright itself. (from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#HoofdstukI_Paragraaf6_Artikel25 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#Hoofdstuk...) edit: note that (1c) talks about modifications of the original (physical) work; it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense as the GPL, where all extensions/updates to the original codebase are also considered modifications of the same work.
gigatexal 4y ago
BSD license?
pravus 4y ago
The license I have been using is this: > This software is information. It is subject only to local laws of physics. I deliberately use the term "information" here to convey a sense of factual truth which is generally not protected under copyright. It is meant to be a license that transcends all human legal systems since I cannot guarantee any protections they would provide. I have been told this will not stand up in a court of law, but the people who told me this don't seem to understand its purpose or effects. As long you obey the laws of physics no legal intervention is ever required. And the best part is that even the people who disagree must always conform to its terms.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  I think the big issue is that there is nothing in this that clearly says "you have permission to use/distribute this". "this software is information" does not achieve this because information can be subject to intellectual property laws! Even excluding that, it's not clear so imposes a legal risk on users. "It is subject only to local laws of physics" does not achieve a clear grant of permission. It's phrased as a statement of fact, and a statement of fact doesn't actually give permission for a reader to just act as if its true. There's minor issues too... just use the 0BSD or MIT-no-attribution or CC0 license which does what you want in clear and unambiguous legal language, with the bonus of trying to stop you getting sued.
  - pravus 4y ago
    No, the big issue is that people seem to think you need permission to "obey the laws of physics". I have no way of enforcing a license under legal regimes with which I can't negotiate. Therefore such terms are meaningless and useless for my licensing purposes. The MIT/BSD licenses require legal interpretation and are not appropriate. Even the "public domain" is a jurisdiction-defined term that is not universal. How can I create unambigous legal language if I don't know the laws to which I am subject? Am I supposed to assume US or "Western" style copyright? Will this work in China? What about Russia or North Korea? Does this language work in 2122? 2222? Under what authority? And since I live in the US, let's be clear: nothing will prevent someone from suing you. The best chance you have is to hope the judge agrees with your interpretation of the law.
freemint 4y ago
0BSD is the license for that if you do not even care that attribution is provided. 0BSD code even ships with Android, so it is safish to assume other large companies would approve it too.
macksd 4y ago
I believe you're just describing putting something in the public domain and waiving all copyright (CC talks about this too: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/pdm/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/pd...). But be cautious: you're still required to comply with the requirements of any licenses for dependencies you redistribute.
- lupire 4y ago
  No, that is only for “No Known Copyright”. The problem with Public Domain is that it is decided by law, not by you. You can't put anything on the public domain; the public takes domain by expiring copyright.
culi 4y ago
the relevant copyleft landscape: - [Unlicense](https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/) - [What The Fuck You Want](http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/) - [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/) - [0BSD](https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD) You can find more on tl;dr:legal https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/Copyleft https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/Copyleft
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

doublepg23 4y ago

Is there anything wrong with MIT or the more succinct ISC license? Is the attribution portion a sticking point?

sodality2 4y ago
Yeah, I mean a license without any strings attached at all. I’m just curious if one exists already.
- mlinksva 4y ago
  Yes, 0BSD is ISC with ", provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies" removed. MIT-0 is MIT with "subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" removed. Unlicense is a more ideological statement.
- occamrazor 4y ago
  Other comments provide links to licenses similar to what you are looking for. But I’d like to argue that the MIT/BSD2 licenses are _better_ than a “no strings attached“ license, even when one wants to give the broadest permissions to use and modify a piece of code. The obligation to preserve attribution and license is as unobtrusive as possible, and at the same time gives assurance that the code is actually properly licensed. The typical corporate entity will not trust a piece of code with no license and would have to track copyright and license in some database. Having the same information in the source files makes things easier.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Also you have to be careful, because in some countries, attribution isnt waived unless you explicitly say. I think in some countries you arent even allowed to waive attribution. IANAL

spiffytech 4y ago

The Unlicense is the closest that I know of. It attempts to release the software into the public domain. Since not all jurisdictions have the notion of public domain, it also explicitly waives copyright (though it doesn't mention patents).

cjbprime 4y ago
I don't have any insight into how effective Unlicense is, but to give an idea of how complicated this is: just as many jurisdictions don't let you place things into a Public Domain, or even have the legal concept of one, some (I think France?) also don't let you just waive your authorial rights. I think a full copyright license is okay, though.
- tremon 4y ago
  It's usually the moral rights (separate but related to the economic part of copyright) that can't be waived: > In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe) IIRC, moral rights are also always tied to the individual and not to the employer or organization. In NL, these moral rights include the following properties: > even after transferring their copyright, the original creator retains the rights to: > 1a. oppose publication of the work without attribution > 1b. oppose publication of the work under a different name than their own (applies to both the name of the work and the name of the creator) > 1c. oppose modifications of the work > 1d. oppose any kind of mutilation of disfiguration of the work, or modifications that would negatively affect the perception of the work or its creator > Of these rights, 1a can be waived entirely; 1b and 1c can be waived only with regards to the name of the work, not its creator; right 1d remains the privilege of the creator (or any designated heir) for the entire duration of the copyright itself. (from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#HoofdstukI_Paragraaf6_Artikel25 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#Hoofdstuk...) edit: note that (1c) talks about modifications of the original (physical) work; it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense as the GPL, where all extensions/updates to the original codebase are also considered modifications of the same work.

gigatexal 4y ago

BSD license?

pravus 4y ago

The license I have been using is this: > This software is information. It is subject only to local laws of physics. I deliberately use the term "information" here to convey a sense of factual truth which is generally not protected under copyright. It is meant to be a license that transcends all human legal systems since I cannot guarantee any protections they would provide. I have been told this will not stand up in a court of law, but the people who told me this don't seem to understand its purpose or effects. As long you obey the laws of physics no legal intervention is ever required. And the best part is that even the people who disagree must always conform to its terms.

advisedwang 4y ago
I think the big issue is that there is nothing in this that clearly says "you have permission to use/distribute this". "this software is information" does not achieve this because information can be subject to intellectual property laws! Even excluding that, it's not clear so imposes a legal risk on users. "It is subject only to local laws of physics" does not achieve a clear grant of permission. It's phrased as a statement of fact, and a statement of fact doesn't actually give permission for a reader to just act as if its true. There's minor issues too... just use the 0BSD or MIT-no-attribution or CC0 license which does what you want in clear and unambiguous legal language, with the bonus of trying to stop you getting sued.
- pravus 4y ago
  No, the big issue is that people seem to think you need permission to "obey the laws of physics". I have no way of enforcing a license under legal regimes with which I can't negotiate. Therefore such terms are meaningless and useless for my licensing purposes. The MIT/BSD licenses require legal interpretation and are not appropriate. Even the "public domain" is a jurisdiction-defined term that is not universal. How can I create unambigous legal language if I don't know the laws to which I am subject? Am I supposed to assume US or "Western" style copyright? Will this work in China? What about Russia or North Korea? Does this language work in 2122? 2222? Under what authority? And since I live in the US, let's be clear: nothing will prevent someone from suing you. The best chance you have is to hope the judge agrees with your interpretation of the law.

freemint 4y ago

0BSD is the license for that if you do not even care that attribution is provided. 0BSD code even ships with Android, so it is safish to assume other large companies would approve it too.

macksd 4y ago

I believe you're just describing putting something in the public domain and waiving all copyright (CC talks about this too: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/pdm/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/pd...). But be cautious: you're still required to comply with the requirements of any licenses for dependencies you redistribute.

lupire 4y ago
No, that is only for “No Known Copyright”. The problem with Public Domain is that it is decided by law, not by you. You can't put anything on the public domain; the public takes domain by expiring copyright.

culi 4y ago

the relevant copyleft landscape: - [Unlicense](https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/) - [What The Fuck You Want](http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/) - [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/) - [0BSD](https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD) You can find more on tl;dr:legal https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/Copyleft https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/Copyleft

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]