3 ms·

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"

by 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.
  - fl0id 4y ago
    Well your text will not work anywhere, you might as well not provide one. Instead your text mentions things like "laws of physics" which are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, and reads like you just want to make fun of licenses/the law, so even more reason it will not achieve what you want.

by pravus 4y ago

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.
- fl0id 4y ago
  Well your text will not work anywhere, you might as well not provide one. Instead your text mentions things like "laws of physics" which are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, and reads like you just want to make fun of licenses/the law, so even more reason it will not achieve what you want.