5 ms·

Most of the work I release is licensed using MIT because it allows other developers to build with my code without limitations or requiring full attribution. I l

Most of the work I release is licensed using MIT because it allows other developers to build with my code without limitations or requiring full attribution. I like the idea of anybody having direct access to change or update what I've written to make it better, faster, cleaner. Until I can find a more "free" license I will stick to MIT as well.

dazzawazza 14y ago
It's important to remember that as well as giving others 'freedom' MIT also protects you from being held responsible for your l33tstrcmp causing a plane to crash in to the ground.
StavrosK 14y ago
More free than MIT? Public domain?
- kelnos 14y ago
  In some countries, public domain doesn't actually exist, so software put into the public domain actually has uncertain legal standing there. Better to retain copyright and put a very permissive license on it to avoid ambiguity.
- jakerocheleau 14y ago
  This is funny because I asked this exact same thing in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 Most people told me it's just not possible from a legal stance, unfortunately. Because honestly I would release most of my works as public domain for people to use as they see fit. Maybe copyright laws will change in the future, but MIT is a close 2nd. Plus it's easy to read and known well among developers(as others have mentioned).
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Hum, that's very interesting. I wonder what the most legally permissive license would be, and whether someone has written it.
wereHamster 14y ago
http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- kelnos 14y ago
  Please don't. Licenses like MIT, BSD 2-clause, etc. are all well-understood by people in the legal profession at this point, while these really add nothing to the table. There's no need for the proliferation of open source licenses.
- touristtam 14y ago
  I always like the later one, as a punk-ish way to express a free and permissive license. Glad someone mentioned it. :)
profquail 14y ago
I like the Apache 2.0 license -- while it's much lengthier than the MIT or BSD licenses, it provides similar licensing terms with the crucial addition of patent protection. If someone submits code to an Apache 2.0-licensed project which is covered by a patent they own, they're required to provide an _explicit_ license for those patents when submitting the code.

dazzawazza 14y ago

It's important to remember that as well as giving others 'freedom' MIT also protects you from being held responsible for your l33tstrcmp causing a plane to crash in to the ground.

StavrosK 14y ago

More free than MIT? Public domain?

kelnos 14y ago
In some countries, public domain doesn't actually exist, so software put into the public domain actually has uncertain legal standing there. Better to retain copyright and put a very permissive license on it to avoid ambiguity.
jakerocheleau 14y ago
This is funny because I asked this exact same thing in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 Most people told me it's just not possible from a legal stance, unfortunately. Because honestly I would release most of my works as public domain for people to use as they see fit. Maybe copyright laws will change in the future, but MIT is a close 2nd. Plus it's easy to read and known well among developers(as others have mentioned).
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Hum, that's very interesting. I wonder what the most legally permissive license would be, and whether someone has written it.

wereHamster 14y ago

http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

kelnos 14y ago
Please don't. Licenses like MIT, BSD 2-clause, etc. are all well-understood by people in the legal profession at this point, while these really add nothing to the table. There's no need for the proliferation of open source licenses.
touristtam 14y ago
I always like the later one, as a punk-ish way to express a free and permissive license. Glad someone mentioned it. :)

profquail 14y ago

I like the Apache 2.0 license -- while it's much lengthier than the MIT or BSD licenses, it provides similar licensing terms with the crucial addition of patent protection. If someone submits code to an Apache 2.0-licensed project which is covered by a patent they own, they're required to provide an _explicit_ license for those patents when submitting the code.