5 ms·
> License: Copy me, no licence. Probably BSD or Apache would be better, as they make it easier for certain organizations to use this. If you want to maximize c
by SequoiaHope 1y ago
> License: Copy me, no licence.
Probably BSD or Apache would be better, as they make it easier for certain organizations to use this. If you want to maximize copying, then a real permissive license is probably marginally better.
- master-lincoln 1y agoBetter go GPL so organizations using it have to open source any improvements they make
- Der_Einzige 1y agoGPL has never been enforced in court against anyone with serious money. It’s not worth the virtual paper it’s written on.
- master-lincoln 1y agoIs that different with any other permissive library that has conditions? Also I found one case where Skype retracted their formal objection in front of court and the GPL was enforced. Not sure if that is serious enough money for you (german source http://www.golem.de/0805/59587.html http://www.golem.de/0805/59587.html)
- bobmcnamara 1y agodistributing it.
- master-lincoln 1y agoyeah, important point. thanks for correcting
- bobmcnamara 1y agoAnytime. It's often, though not precisely, the difference between AGPL and GPL.
- SequoiaHope 1y agoThe author apparently wanted no restrictions on distribution, so GPL is not the right choice.
- MrGilbert 1y agoCC0 would be in the spirit of what OP envisioned. https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/
- liszper 1y agoUpdated to CC0!
- SequoiaHope 1y agoThat’s great! Really cool project too.
- SequoiaHope 1y agoAh right good point, I forgot Creative Commons, which I don’t usually use for code.
- deneas 1y agoThey do actually recommend against using Creative Commons for code and suggest using traditional code licenses instead [1]. [1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
- murderfs 1y agoThey recommend against it for the traditional CC licenses (CC-BY-SA, etc.), but CC0 is perfectly fine for code, since it's basically a dedication to the public domain for jurisdictions that don't support that. The FAQ for CC0 says this explicitly: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...
- MadnessASAP 1y agoI think the WTFPL is closer https://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/ https://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/
- dheera 1y ago> make it easier for certain organizations to use this Maybe those organizations should just use this and not worry about it. If their lawyers are getting in the way of engineers using this, they will fall behind as an organization and that's OK with me, it paves the way for new startups that have less baggage.
- SequoiaHope 1y agoThe benefit of not having lawyers is pretty limited. There are larger forces at work that mean the larger an organization grows the more it will be concerned with licenses. The idea that ignoring licenses will allow a company to outcompete one that doesn’t is wishful thinking at best. Moreover, I’m not making a judgment on these practices, I’m just stating a fact.
- spauldo 1y agoThe lawyers don't even have to do anything. I avoid any code that's not MIT or equivalent for work-related things because I don't want to run the risk of polluting company code. The only exception is elisp, because that only runs in Emacs.
- jstummbillig 1y agoI suspect the goal is not to make anything easier for any corp
- asimovfan 1y agothen you use GPL.
- jstummbillig 1y agoDoing whatever you want seems fine too?
- asimovfan 1y agothen you make things easier for a corp. No?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- divan 1y agoWill WTFPL work too? https://choosealicense.com/licenses/wtfpl/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/wtfpl/