3 ms·

Wait... Shouldn't you use a different license if you don't care about attribution? Creative commons maybe. Just because you, as someone who self proclaimed to

Wait... Shouldn't you use a different license if you don't care about attribution? Creative commons maybe. Just because you, as someone who self proclaimed to have done more OSS than 95% of the commenters here, does not know how to use OSS licenses, doesn't mean that the copyright question being discussed here is a non issue. The issue is that you don't care about what the licenses in your code mean: > I publish my code under MIT when possible (...) please train on my work or split out my functions verbatim (...) I don’t even care about the attribution part of MIT

oefrha 4y ago
I choose MIT because it’s a widely used permissive license most people are confident about using, not because I will personally pursue every clause in it. I will not take action against anyone using my MIT-licensed code without attribution. Having been a member of a very high profile permissively licensed project and having started a few relatively popular ones of my own, I’d say I don’t need to take licensing advice or be called “does not know how to use OSS licenses” from someone who laughably advises using Creative Commons, when Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code, except CC0, which is entirely different from CC.
- planede 4y ago
  There is MIT-0, a no-attribution variant of the same license.
- ranguna 4y ago
  My good, sorry to move away from the topic, but do you realise how childish you look with your comments? I was considering not replying, but here goes nothing.... > not because I will personally pursue every clause in it. Then you are out of the game, because all clauses should be respected, or else you are committing something very close to an illegality when you violate said clauses. If you don't want a specific clause, consult a lawyer and remove it, or use another license. > Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code So before your didn't care about respecting clauses and now you do? I could argue: there are some bits of text in CC that make it not a good license for code, but I don't care because I don't respect those clauses. I'm not going to make that argument, because it doesn't make any sense. You either use a license and respect it or you don't.

oefrha 4y ago

I choose MIT because it’s a widely used permissive license most people are confident about using, not because I will personally pursue every clause in it. I will not take action against anyone using my MIT-licensed code without attribution. Having been a member of a very high profile permissively licensed project and having started a few relatively popular ones of my own, I’d say I don’t need to take licensing advice or be called “does not know how to use OSS licenses” from someone who laughably advises using Creative Commons, when Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code, except CC0, which is entirely different from CC.

planede 4y ago
There is MIT-0, a no-attribution variant of the same license.
ranguna 4y ago
My good, sorry to move away from the topic, but do you realise how childish you look with your comments? I was considering not replying, but here goes nothing.... > not because I will personally pursue every clause in it. Then you are out of the game, because all clauses should be respected, or else you are committing something very close to an illegality when you violate said clauses. If you don't want a specific clause, consult a lawyer and remove it, or use another license. > Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code So before your didn't care about respecting clauses and now you do? I could argue: there are some bits of text in CC that make it not a good license for code, but I don't care because I don't respect those clauses. I'm not going to make that argument, because it doesn't make any sense. You either use a license and respect it or you don't.