4 ms·

You should use a 2-BSD/3-BSD, 0-BSD, MIT-0, or CC0 (less so) instead if you are practical and want a practical nearly-as-possible public domain license. You ca

by fargle 4y ago

You should use a 2-BSD/3-BSD, 0-BSD, MIT-0, or CC0 (less so) instead if you are practical and want a practical nearly-as-possible public domain license. You can use the WTFPL if you want to thumb your nose at copyright for political reasons, but don't care if it actually is usable for people that need to care about copyright law. I don't see what this unlicense does better except the cheeky name.

adastra22 4y ago
Or my favorite, the SQLite Blessing: ----- The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing: May you do good and not evil. May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
- fargle 4y ago
  I love this, but it has some of the same problems as unlicense and WTFPL. there are legal jurisdictions that do not recognize "public domain" and many people who then cannot safely handle this situation. If you want people to be able to conveniently and confidently use the software to in a maximally open way, then it should have a 0BSD/2BSD license as a backstop. You can always include a blessing on top. WTFPL and unlicense work against being fully open, and i suspect it's a mix of tongue-in-cheek and guerilla anti-copyright (e.g. if you believe in copyright law you can't use this hahahah). Both being commendable, but you're gatekeeping what should be free too then and also creating practical problems for sane, regular people who just want to legally use your awesome thing.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    I don’t use any of those because I understand the law and how the use of copyright and licenses are a good thing, compared to these alternatives. But I respect that if you’re going to go the route of no copyright / no license, at least SQLite owns it.
    - fargle 4y ago
      agree! I think it's one of those things where it shouldn't be emulated, but yes they owned it.

by fargle 4y ago

adastra22 4y ago

Or my favorite, the SQLite Blessing: ----- The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing: May you do good and not evil. May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

fargle 4y ago
I love this, but it has some of the same problems as unlicense and WTFPL. there are legal jurisdictions that do not recognize "public domain" and many people who then cannot safely handle this situation. If you want people to be able to conveniently and confidently use the software to in a maximally open way, then it should have a 0BSD/2BSD license as a backstop. You can always include a blessing on top. WTFPL and unlicense work against being fully open, and i suspect it's a mix of tongue-in-cheek and guerilla anti-copyright (e.g. if you believe in copyright law you can't use this hahahah). Both being commendable, but you're gatekeeping what should be free too then and also creating practical problems for sane, regular people who just want to legally use your awesome thing.
- adastra22 4y ago
  I don’t use any of those because I understand the law and how the use of copyright and licenses are a good thing, compared to these alternatives. But I respect that if you’re going to go the route of no copyright / no license, at least SQLite owns it.
  - fargle 4y ago
    agree! I think it's one of those things where it shouldn't be emulated, but yes they owned it.