7 ms·

ROFL: An open-source license that promotes fun in coding

23 points by tslmy 3y ago

nathell 3y ago
[flagged]
sneak 3y ago
This is not an open source license. The restrictions make it nonfree.
nsajko 3y ago
A Code of Conduct posing as a licence?
- tslmy 3y ago
  CoCs only deal with the community part, IMO. Licenses can say about so much more — Even coding activities.
rapnie 3y ago
This aligns with CUPID Joyful Coding [0] by Dan North. [0] https://cupid.dev https://cupid.dev
- tslmy 3y ago
  Lovely! Thank you! Reading now.
croes 3y ago
Sounds good, doesn't work. >Be inclusive with the community around this software. Foster an inclusive and welcoming environment for all individuals, free from discrimination, harassment, or exclusionary behavior. (a) No vulgarity (b) Mind the cultural differences (c) No aggressive behavior. (b) determines what is counted as (a), some is partly valid for (c)
- ninjin 3y ago
  It is a crayon license [1], pure and simple. Not to mention that it likely runs afoul of every reasonable definition of open source out there, despite appropriating the term. [1]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2011-December/017416.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Agreed. Good old programmer humor lives and dies by being harmlessly offensive. Now if you'll excuse me I have some yaks to shave so I can get on with whipping some llama ass with this large trout.
  - elric 3y ago
    I hadn't slapped anyone with a large trout in a very long time. Thanks for the reminder :-)
pabs3 3y ago
Hmm, I'm not sure this meets the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It discriminates against people who are odious bores :)
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It is a EULA too. Open source software doesn't have a EULA.
  - orra 3y ago
    > Open source software doesn't have a EULA. I disagree. First, loads of proper (OSI-approved) Open Source licenses say either your downloading or use requires acceptance of the terms, or that using the software implies acceptance of the terms. Having to agree to a license, for use even without redistribution, makes these (permissive) EULAs. For example: APL-1.0, APSL-2.0, CAL-1.0, CECILL-2.1, CNRI-Python, EPL-1.0, EPL-2.0, Frameworx-1.0, IPL-1.0, MS-PL, MS-RL, OCLC-2.0, RPSL-1.0, Unicode Inc. License Agreement, and Watcom-1.0, are all framed this way. Of course, other open source licenses like the GPL explicitly say acceptance is not required for use. Moreover, the most popular permissive licenses such as Apache-2.0, BSD, and MIT, grant the right to use, without saying they require your acceptance. Second, the copyright grant versus contract (EULA) distinction may be US specific, or certainly it isn't worldwide. Regardless, we agree this joke (“ROFL”) license clearly isn't open source, for other reasons.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Yeah I'm not sure about this one, it's all very restrictive with lots of stipulations. I think I'll go with WTFPL instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
jraph 3y ago
> Embrace a lighthearted attitude while working with the software It seems I wouldn't respect this license if I ever had to contribute a fix in emergency (while stressed). I guess writing with license was fun. Now, please don't use it seriously ;-) I think a lot of things make this license non-free, an example is: "be available when someone asks for help. To ensure that can happen, set up a channel where people can reach you.". For a license to be open source, I should be allowed to just dump my contribution and run away, never to be seen again. I believe this would be Debian's Dissident Test [1]. (To the author: as a consequence, I think you should not mention "open source". It's likely wrong, misleading and it'd be best to reserve this to OSI-approved licenses anyway - or make it clear it's a caricature, parody or a satire) [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest
- tslmy 3y ago
  Noted! Removing.
  - jraph 3y ago
    Wow, nice!
indigane 3y ago
I know most of these sort of licenses are just for fun, but on a serious note, if you don't care about licenses, and you don't care what people do with your code, I would recommend you use The Unlicense, instead of one that sounds funny. The Unlicense is almost like MIT License but without any burden on those using your code. On the other hand it offers you the same (perhaps handwavy) protections from liability as MIT License does. If you're familiar with Creative Commons, it is similar to a CC0 license, but for code. Basically it's a legitimate way of saying "I don't care about licenses, stop bothering me, do whatever". If you use GitHub, then Unlicense is one of the choices you can select when setting up a repository.
- aliceryhl 3y ago
  No, that's a bad take. The unlicense makes your code impossible to use for many people e.g., those in countries like Germany where you're not allowed to dedicate works to the public domain. Similarly, many companies don't allow you to use code with the unlicense because of its unclear legal status. See [1] and [2] for more discussion on this. If you don't care about licenses, the MIT license is a much better choice. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/001386.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.ope... [2]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/147111/what-is-wrong-with-the-unlicense https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1471...
  - indigane 3y ago
    I stand corrected then. I had heard a similar comparison that you should prefer Unlicense over WTFPL, but I had not heard it is impossible to dedicate works to the public domain. What a weird world. If I want to use Unlicense, can I dual license as MIT and Unlicense?
    - aliceryhl 3y ago
      Dual licensing should be fine. (IANAL)
seodisparate 3y ago
https://choosealicense.com/ https://choosealicense.com/ is a good resource that lists a bunch of licenses explained.
- ddevault 3y ago
  I have also written a more comprehensive resource here: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/choose-a-license/ https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/choose-a-lic...
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  "Interesting" that a page run by github/microsoft doesn't particularly encourage use of the AGPL. (you have to click "more licenses" to see it)
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    While I can see why a company like Microsoft might not want to promote AGPL, it remains a pretty controversial license in general. https://bugs.gentoo.org/737708 https://bugs.gentoo.org/737708
Hamuko 3y ago
>The Rejoice of Fun >No vulgarity (dirty jokes, swearing words, etc.) This license does not sound that fun.
jayp1418 3y ago
Better to use Just4Fun Licence
sirodoht 3y ago
Love the intention of this! I'm part of this community [1] which also has similar intentions of programming as fun, rather than as goal accomplishment or as a tool. [1]: https://chaitinschool.org/ https://chaitinschool.org/
wheybags 3y ago
> No vulgarity (dirty jokes, swearing words, etc.). Antithesis of "promoting fun"
Tade0 3y ago
Reminds me of the now infamous: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." And the hilarious, but necessary exemption: "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." Personally I would love to see something named e.g. "corporate drone license", which would allow people in small, dead-end projects in large organizations to use it freely, but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. AGPL comes to mind as the closest thing I can think of, but I suppose the concept itself might be impossible to translate to legalese. All I want is to give back some agency to people whose life circumstances require them to hold on to their current position.
- sneak 3y ago
  > but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. What you are describing is a nonfree license (like the BSL). Freedom means freedom to profit, too. It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. It's no longer "yours". Thinking that you have some say in how others use it after that is fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology The free software ideology has pretty much been shaped by the FSF and the GNU project, and they pretty much advocate for putting restrictions (like those in the *GPL licenses). Because the Free software movement it not about doing gifts and not having (developer) restrictions. It is about ensuring end-user rights. And this arguably requires putting restrictions. What you describe is something else, more in line with what permissive licenses do (which do allow someone else to put restrictions, which is the whole issue). Most permissive license still require attribution though. Your code is still yours. In some jurisdictions, some form of "yours" cannot be given up at all (moral rights).
  - stavros 3y ago
    > It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. You beg the question, though. "When you release free software" already assumes you're releasing free software. The GP doesn't want to release free software, they want to release software with restrictions, as is their right. I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. Why would I donate my work to their for-profit company, when they don't even share alike? That's not even the spirit of open source.
mordae 3y ago
It promotes use of non-free graphics editing software. Pass.

23 points by tslmy 3y ago

nathell 3y ago

[flagged]

sneak 3y ago

This is not an open source license. The restrictions make it nonfree.

nsajko 3y ago

A Code of Conduct posing as a licence?

tslmy 3y ago
CoCs only deal with the community part, IMO. Licenses can say about so much more — Even coding activities.

rapnie 3y ago

This aligns with CUPID Joyful Coding [0] by Dan North. [0] https://cupid.dev https://cupid.dev

tslmy 3y ago
Lovely! Thank you! Reading now.

croes 3y ago

Sounds good, doesn't work. >Be inclusive with the community around this software. Foster an inclusive and welcoming environment for all individuals, free from discrimination, harassment, or exclusionary behavior. (a) No vulgarity (b) Mind the cultural differences (c) No aggressive behavior. (b) determines what is counted as (a), some is partly valid for (c)

ninjin 3y ago
It is a crayon license [1], pure and simple. Not to mention that it likely runs afoul of every reasonable definition of open source out there, despite appropriating the term. [1]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2011-December/017416.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...
Dalewyn 3y ago
Agreed. Good old programmer humor lives and dies by being harmlessly offensive. Now if you'll excuse me I have some yaks to shave so I can get on with whipping some llama ass with this large trout.
- elric 3y ago
  I hadn't slapped anyone with a large trout in a very long time. Thanks for the reminder :-)

pabs3 3y ago

Hmm, I'm not sure this meets the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It discriminates against people who are odious bores :)

charcircuit 3y ago
It is a EULA too. Open source software doesn't have a EULA.
- orra 3y ago
  > Open source software doesn't have a EULA. I disagree. First, loads of proper (OSI-approved) Open Source licenses say either your downloading or use requires acceptance of the terms, or that using the software implies acceptance of the terms. Having to agree to a license, for use even without redistribution, makes these (permissive) EULAs. For example: APL-1.0, APSL-2.0, CAL-1.0, CECILL-2.1, CNRI-Python, EPL-1.0, EPL-2.0, Frameworx-1.0, IPL-1.0, MS-PL, MS-RL, OCLC-2.0, RPSL-1.0, Unicode Inc. License Agreement, and Watcom-1.0, are all framed this way. Of course, other open source licenses like the GPL explicitly say acceptance is not required for use. Moreover, the most popular permissive licenses such as Apache-2.0, BSD, and MIT, grant the right to use, without saying they require your acceptance. Second, the copyright grant versus contract (EULA) distinction may be US specific, or certainly it isn't worldwide. Regardless, we agree this joke (“ROFL”) license clearly isn't open source, for other reasons.
moffkalast 3y ago
Yeah I'm not sure about this one, it's all very restrictive with lots of stipulations. I think I'll go with WTFPL instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

jraph 3y ago

> Embrace a lighthearted attitude while working with the software It seems I wouldn't respect this license if I ever had to contribute a fix in emergency (while stressed). I guess writing with license was fun. Now, please don't use it seriously ;-) I think a lot of things make this license non-free, an example is: "be available when someone asks for help. To ensure that can happen, set up a channel where people can reach you.". For a license to be open source, I should be allowed to just dump my contribution and run away, never to be seen again. I believe this would be Debian's Dissident Test [1]. (To the author: as a consequence, I think you should not mention "open source". It's likely wrong, misleading and it'd be best to reserve this to OSI-approved licenses anyway - or make it clear it's a caricature, parody or a satire) [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest

tslmy 3y ago
Noted! Removing.
- jraph 3y ago
  Wow, nice!

indigane 3y ago

I know most of these sort of licenses are just for fun, but on a serious note, if you don't care about licenses, and you don't care what people do with your code, I would recommend you use The Unlicense, instead of one that sounds funny. The Unlicense is almost like MIT License but without any burden on those using your code. On the other hand it offers you the same (perhaps handwavy) protections from liability as MIT License does. If you're familiar with Creative Commons, it is similar to a CC0 license, but for code. Basically it's a legitimate way of saying "I don't care about licenses, stop bothering me, do whatever". If you use GitHub, then Unlicense is one of the choices you can select when setting up a repository.

aliceryhl 3y ago
No, that's a bad take. The unlicense makes your code impossible to use for many people e.g., those in countries like Germany where you're not allowed to dedicate works to the public domain. Similarly, many companies don't allow you to use code with the unlicense because of its unclear legal status. See [1] and [2] for more discussion on this. If you don't care about licenses, the MIT license is a much better choice. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/001386.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.ope... [2]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/147111/what-is-wrong-with-the-unlicense https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1471...
- indigane 3y ago
  I stand corrected then. I had heard a similar comparison that you should prefer Unlicense over WTFPL, but I had not heard it is impossible to dedicate works to the public domain. What a weird world. If I want to use Unlicense, can I dual license as MIT and Unlicense?
  - aliceryhl 3y ago
    Dual licensing should be fine. (IANAL)

seodisparate 3y ago

https://choosealicense.com/ https://choosealicense.com/ is a good resource that lists a bunch of licenses explained.

ddevault 3y ago
I have also written a more comprehensive resource here: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/choose-a-license/ https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/choose-a-lic...
RobotToaster 3y ago
"Interesting" that a page run by github/microsoft doesn't particularly encourage use of the AGPL. (you have to click "more licenses" to see it)
- Hamuko 3y ago
  While I can see why a company like Microsoft might not want to promote AGPL, it remains a pretty controversial license in general. https://bugs.gentoo.org/737708 https://bugs.gentoo.org/737708

Hamuko 3y ago

>The Rejoice of Fun >No vulgarity (dirty jokes, swearing words, etc.) This license does not sound that fun.

jayp1418 3y ago

Better to use Just4Fun Licence

sirodoht 3y ago

Love the intention of this! I'm part of this community [1] which also has similar intentions of programming as fun, rather than as goal accomplishment or as a tool. [1]: https://chaitinschool.org/ https://chaitinschool.org/

wheybags 3y ago

> No vulgarity (dirty jokes, swearing words, etc.). Antithesis of "promoting fun"

Tade0 3y ago

Reminds me of the now infamous: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." And the hilarious, but necessary exemption: "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." Personally I would love to see something named e.g. "corporate drone license", which would allow people in small, dead-end projects in large organizations to use it freely, but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. AGPL comes to mind as the closest thing I can think of, but I suppose the concept itself might be impossible to translate to legalese. All I want is to give back some agency to people whose life circumstances require them to hold on to their current position.

sneak 3y ago
> but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. What you are describing is a nonfree license (like the BSL). Freedom means freedom to profit, too. It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. It's no longer "yours". Thinking that you have some say in how others use it after that is fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology.
- jraph 3y ago
  > fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology The free software ideology has pretty much been shaped by the FSF and the GNU project, and they pretty much advocate for putting restrictions (like those in the *GPL licenses). Because the Free software movement it not about doing gifts and not having (developer) restrictions. It is about ensuring end-user rights. And this arguably requires putting restrictions. What you describe is something else, more in line with what permissive licenses do (which do allow someone else to put restrictions, which is the whole issue). Most permissive license still require attribution though. Your code is still yours. In some jurisdictions, some form of "yours" cannot be given up at all (moral rights).
- stavros 3y ago
  > It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. You beg the question, though. "When you release free software" already assumes you're releasing free software. The GP doesn't want to release free software, they want to release software with restrictions, as is their right. I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. Why would I donate my work to their for-profit company, when they don't even share alike? That's not even the spirit of open source.

mordae 3y ago

It promotes use of non-free graphics editing software. Pass.