3 ms·

I've used Unlicense before, but I have since been persuaded that this was a mistake. Frankly, I think that unlicense inadequately protects user freedom. It does

by bhickey 15y ago

I've used Unlicense before, but I have since been persuaded that this was a mistake. Frankly, I think that unlicense inadequately protects user freedom. It does not contain a patent grant or estoppel. While I don't care about attribution, the disruption of provenance is problematic. I should hope that there are few companies interested in shipping code that, as far as they can tell, fell off the back of a truck. Suppose that Foo Corp releases Unlicensed code that includes patented material. Baz Ltd goes on to develop a widget that uses Foo's code. Later on, Bar Inc buys Foo Corp and files suit against Baz. No disrespect meant to Arto, but he simply isn't a intellectual property attorney. (Edit: And neither am I.)

kiba 15y ago
While I don't care about attribution, the disruption of provenance is problematic. Heard that loudly and clearly several time in this thread. Suppose that Foo Corp releases Unlicensed code that includes patented material. Baz Ltd goes on to develop a widget that uses Foo's code. Later on, Bar Inc buys Foo Corp and files suit against Baz. Good point. The problem only exists because patent exists.
- clarkevans 15y ago
  The point is that copyright dedications are not licenses. Therefore, if you want to submarine someone... do a copyright dedication (but don't grant patent rights). Wait till your "public domain" work is broadly adopted, then sue. Or, conversely, if you want to get sued... use works in the public domain where the person doing the dedication hasn't also granted patent license. At least if you use a standard MIT license there may be an "equitable estoppel through acquiescence" in which the copyright holder might not be able to sue you for patent infringement since the MIT license said you could use the work.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    It's better to use the Apache 2.0 license which includes a patent grant, though.

by bhickey 15y ago

kiba 15y ago

While I don't care about attribution, the disruption of provenance is problematic. Heard that loudly and clearly several time in this thread. Suppose that Foo Corp releases Unlicensed code that includes patented material. Baz Ltd goes on to develop a widget that uses Foo's code. Later on, Bar Inc buys Foo Corp and files suit against Baz. Good point. The problem only exists because patent exists.

clarkevans 15y ago
The point is that copyright dedications are not licenses. Therefore, if you want to submarine someone... do a copyright dedication (but don't grant patent rights). Wait till your "public domain" work is broadly adopted, then sue. Or, conversely, if you want to get sued... use works in the public domain where the person doing the dedication hasn't also granted patent license. At least if you use a standard MIT license there may be an "equitable estoppel through acquiescence" in which the copyright holder might not be able to sue you for patent infringement since the MIT license said you could use the work.
- icebraining 15y ago
  It's better to use the Apache 2.0 license which includes a patent grant, though.