4 ms·

No license typically means copyright with all rights reserved in the U.S. Perhaps you want to release this into the public domain (see SQLite)?

actionfromafar 3y ago
I’d say the license is: “ Use it at your own risk, and don't blame me if anything bad happens. Oh, and if you extend it, make sure there isn't any Objective-C in it!” I’d classify it as Open Source.
- nicky0 3y ago
  Oh no that won't fly at all. People around here really like "proper" licenses. And they'll tell you about it.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I don't like the (perhaps actually a) license, because it set's limits on what the user can do with the source code. (Not allowing Objective C in it.)
    - fao_ 3y ago
      yeah i accidentally added objective c code and now im kissing my ass bracing for the lawsuit!!!!!!!111
  - gleenn 3y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but one would definitely let you know that at least in the US, software without a license is more dangerous than software with even a very restrictive one. Someone can come along and determine the license at any time. So there is good reason to point it out unless you crave legal jeopardy.
    - nicky0 2y ago
      GNU/FSF's opinion on informal licenses (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal): Informal license An “informal license” means a statement such as “do whatever you like with this” or “you can redistribute this code and change it.” In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpreted based on what the author seems to intend. So they probably mean what they appear to mean. That would make them non-copyleft free software licenses and compatible with the GNU GPL. However, an unlucky choice of wording could give it a different meaning. However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses. There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means. Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all. If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous trouble for your users. Please choose and apply an established free software license. We offer recommendations that we suggest you follow.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  It's open source but it is still under copyright. There are notices in the source file: https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/View.c#L5-L6 https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/View.c#L5... I would definitely ask permission and encourage the author to change the license before using this code. Since API calls are purely functional and not covered by copyright you can mimic the behavior here but you'll need to rewrite everything from scratch, notably the most expressive parts, which are: https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsTypes.h https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType... https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsTypes.c https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType... The organization and structure of this code is arbitrary and within the author's creative expression.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    In most jurisdictions almost everything is under copyright, until it expires. (Which is approximately right before the heat death of the universe, after Disney get their way. Or 70 years after the authors death, or something like that.)
    - ranger_danger 3y ago
      https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/how-the-supreme-court-saved-the-software-industry-from-api-copyrights/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/how-the-supreme-...
    - ngcc_hk 2y ago
      Actually Micky is free.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    Copyleft licenses depend on copyright. I think it was in an FSF FAQ somewhere. GPL is as copyright maximalist as it gets.
  - williamcotton 2y ago
    I always see the strangest fluctuations in upvotes and downvotes whenever I state the laws and doctrines of copyright. FWIW, I do court ordered code inspections to assess alleged copyright infringement for a living.
- embirico 3y ago
  I do love the vibe of that license
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    If it weren't for it claiming to not be a license in the sentence before, it would be pretty good. Reminds me of the WTFPL license. :) https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WTFPL https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WTFPL
- dec0dedab0de 3y ago
  It’s definitely not Open Source with that Objective-C restriction. Though it does fit the attitude of the project.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I’d say the license is: “ Use it at your own risk, and don't blame me if anything bad happens. Oh, and if you extend it, make sure there isn't any Objective-C in it!” I’d classify it as Open Source.

nicky0 3y ago
Oh no that won't fly at all. People around here really like "proper" licenses. And they'll tell you about it.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  I don't like the (perhaps actually a) license, because it set's limits on what the user can do with the source code. (Not allowing Objective C in it.)
  - fao_ 3y ago
    yeah i accidentally added objective c code and now im kissing my ass bracing for the lawsuit!!!!!!!111
- gleenn 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but one would definitely let you know that at least in the US, software without a license is more dangerous than software with even a very restrictive one. Someone can come along and determine the license at any time. So there is good reason to point it out unless you crave legal jeopardy.
  - nicky0 2y ago
    GNU/FSF's opinion on informal licenses (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal): Informal license An “informal license” means a statement such as “do whatever you like with this” or “you can redistribute this code and change it.” In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpreted based on what the author seems to intend. So they probably mean what they appear to mean. That would make them non-copyleft free software licenses and compatible with the GNU GPL. However, an unlucky choice of wording could give it a different meaning. However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses. There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means. Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all. If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous trouble for your users. Please choose and apply an established free software license. We offer recommendations that we suggest you follow.
williamcotton 3y ago
It's open source but it is still under copyright. There are notices in the source file: https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/View.c#L5-L6 https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/View.c#L5... I would definitely ask permission and encourage the author to change the license before using this code. Since API calls are purely functional and not covered by copyright you can mimic the behavior here but you'll need to rewrite everything from scratch, notably the most expressive parts, which are: https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsTypes.h https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType... https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsTypes.c https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType... The organization and structure of this code is arbitrary and within the author's creative expression.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  In most jurisdictions almost everything is under copyright, until it expires. (Which is approximately right before the heat death of the universe, after Disney get their way. Or 70 years after the authors death, or something like that.)
  - ranger_danger 3y ago
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/how-the-supreme-court-saved-the-software-industry-from-api-copyrights/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/how-the-supreme-...
  - ngcc_hk 2y ago
    Actually Micky is free.
- numpad0 3y ago
  Copyleft licenses depend on copyright. I think it was in an FSF FAQ somewhere. GPL is as copyright maximalist as it gets.
- williamcotton 2y ago
  I always see the strangest fluctuations in upvotes and downvotes whenever I state the laws and doctrines of copyright. FWIW, I do court ordered code inspections to assess alleged copyright infringement for a living.
embirico 3y ago
I do love the vibe of that license
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  If it weren't for it claiming to not be a license in the sentence before, it would be pretty good. Reminds me of the WTFPL license. :) https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WTFPL https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WTFPL
dec0dedab0de 3y ago
It’s definitely not Open Source with that Objective-C restriction. Though it does fit the attitude of the project.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]