7 ms·

Every one of those licenses is more pretentious than I'd like. Does anybody know the closest one to: "Here's some code. Do what you want with it?" As a guy

Every one of those licenses is more pretentious than I'd like. Does anybody know the closest one to: "Here's some code. Do what you want with it?" As a guy releasing code, I don't want you to feel obligated to me in any way. I don't want you to have to attribute back to me, or even acknowledge in any form that you've used my thing. I certainly don't want to do anything silly like force you to open source the rest of your code. I just want to give stuff away. It doesn't seem like that's very possible these days.

Afforess 13y ago
The MIT License. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT . It's about as short as you can get while still satisfying legal types.
- belorn 13y ago
  Still require copyright notice and permission notice to be included in all copies. If you are a embedded developer, that requirement is still very much there.
aegiso 13y ago
WTFPL?
- Afforess 13y ago
  I find that these sort of licenses do exactly the opposite, as vulgarity pushes away people who might have used the works otherwise.
  - nfriedly 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure my company uses some WTFPL-licensed software somewhere ;)
- Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
  Exactly that. I've licensed a couple of things as WTFPL. It says: not only can you do what you want, I reject all this GPL-style "my freedom is better than your freedom" buffoonery. If you're afraid of offending people and therefore want to relicense under CC0 or MIT or whatever, you can, because WTFPL allows you to do WTF you like. Obviously.
mtct 13y ago
creative common zero
leftnode 13y ago
Could you just claim it to be in the public domain?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  My understanding is that CC0 was created in response to a lack of clear method (perhaps in some jurisdictions?) for placing a work in the public domain.
- TylerE 13y ago
  No, because public domain is not a universal concept. In some countries there is no such thing and the code would default back to copyrighted.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jlgaddis 13y ago
> I just want to give stuff away. For my own code, I prefer the BSD license. Anyone who wants to take it and use it in their own project (whether open source or not) is free to do so. For me, this provides more "freedom" than the GPL does. I don't care if others provide their changes back to me or if they take it and incorporate it into a successful commercial project and make a few dollars from it. I'm a big fan of OS X (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the BSD license.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  For my own code, I prefer the GPL. I write free software, and share it with other people who write free software. I don't share it with people who write closed source software. They are free to write their own versions of my software. After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software. I'm a big fan of Linux (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the GPL license.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > I don't share it with people who write closed source software. Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple. Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      "Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple." - Obviously when I said "sharing" I was talking about using my code in their products. But you knew this. "Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code." That's fine. They're happy for me to not share any changes I make with them. They explicitly told me this when they released it under MIT/BSD. That's their choice, and they are free to make it. I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. As is my choice. If I spend time working on their code, my changes are going to be released under the GPL, because I don't want my code to be used in closed source software. Where's the problem? So yeah, it sucks that they can't re-use my code. But that's their choice. And I'm assuming they're happy with their choice because of the license they chose. if they weren't happy with this arrangement, they'd have chosen the GPL. [edit] Also, even if I do this, I am still sharing my code with them, as long as they are happy to keep it out of closed source products. If they think it's more important that people can write closed source software with their code, than integrate my code into theirs, that's fine. Again, their choice. Everyone is free to do what they want. Even people who write closed source software. They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine.
jedahan 13y ago
http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. Then that annoying all caps standard 'I AM NOT HELD LIABLE' sentence: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Done :D
tjaerv 13y ago
Plenty of public domain software on GitHub, with more being created all the time: https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jballanc 13y ago
Giving stuff away without a license can be hazardous to your livelihood. This is due to the concept of "Implied Warranty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty), which says that anything you sell must be suitable for its intended purpose. This means that the fruit that you buy at the store cannot be spoiled, and the software that you sell should be free of serious bugs. "Wait," you're thinking, "I didn't say sell. I said give away!" Ah, yes, but were you planning on accepting pull requests? Because exchange of money is not the only way to sell something. There is also the concept of "In Kind" payment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind). So, you make a library with something like a WTFPL license attached. I download your library and use it for my product. Then, to show my gratitude, I submit a pull request with a new feature to one of your other projects (an "In Kind" payment). Later, I find that your first library has a bug that's causing problems for my customers... ...so I sue you for violating the Implied Warranty that you didn't disclaim in your WTFPL license. This is why all of those open source licenses have the ANNOYING ALL CAPS clauses explicitly disclaiming any implied warranty. The More You Know!™
- belorn 13y ago
  In kind is particular tricky legal aspect regarding software. In a previous comment, I wonder if services that take data as payment in exchange for service should be taxed. It would put pressure on companies like google to either stop taking in data, or pay per data point. I can see however that taking that viewpoint would put many other tit for tat in question. So, as far as in kind is viewed by the state, software has been left alone.
zookatron 13y ago
I prefer to use the Unlicense for this: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/ It's just about as permissive as you can get and it's more professional that the WTFPL license.
- tjaerv 13y ago
  Looks like you're in good company, as well: https://github.com/search?q=Unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=Unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed
- belorn 13y ago
  An actually answer to the OP that fulfill the requirement of the requested license. MIT license do not fulfill, as it require copyright notice and permission notice. WTFPL do not fulfill the requirement, as it require edited software to change name. Unlicense do fulfill the OPs requirements. It really deserve to be upvoted above the MIT suggestion.
wahnfrieden 13y ago
You're actually creating more obstacles to using your code if you release it under a license that hasn't been vetted by any lawyers. Many companies have their lawyers approve of a given license before adopting code under it, and because of this friction, often it's simpler to just have a company-wide policy to only allow use of code under X, Y or Z licenses and none others. Please just use MIT or BSD.

Afforess 13y ago

The MIT License. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT . It's about as short as you can get while still satisfying legal types.

belorn 13y ago
Still require copyright notice and permission notice to be included in all copies. If you are a embedded developer, that requirement is still very much there.

aegiso 13y ago

WTFPL?

Afforess 13y ago
I find that these sort of licenses do exactly the opposite, as vulgarity pushes away people who might have used the works otherwise.
- nfriedly 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure my company uses some WTFPL-licensed software somewhere ;)
Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
Exactly that. I've licensed a couple of things as WTFPL. It says: not only can you do what you want, I reject all this GPL-style "my freedom is better than your freedom" buffoonery. If you're afraid of offending people and therefore want to relicense under CC0 or MIT or whatever, you can, because WTFPL allows you to do WTF you like. Obviously.

mtct 13y ago

creative common zero

leftnode 13y ago

Could you just claim it to be in the public domain?

dllthomas 13y ago
My understanding is that CC0 was created in response to a lack of clear method (perhaps in some jurisdictions?) for placing a work in the public domain.
TylerE 13y ago
No, because public domain is not a universal concept. In some countries there is no such thing and the code would default back to copyrighted.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jlgaddis 13y ago

> I just want to give stuff away. For my own code, I prefer the BSD license. Anyone who wants to take it and use it in their own project (whether open source or not) is free to do so. For me, this provides more "freedom" than the GPL does. I don't care if others provide their changes back to me or if they take it and incorporate it into a successful commercial project and make a few dollars from it. I'm a big fan of OS X (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the BSD license.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
For my own code, I prefer the GPL. I write free software, and share it with other people who write free software. I don't share it with people who write closed source software. They are free to write their own versions of my software. After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software. I'm a big fan of Linux (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the GPL license.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > I don't share it with people who write closed source software. Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple. Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    "Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple." - Obviously when I said "sharing" I was talking about using my code in their products. But you knew this. "Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code." That's fine. They're happy for me to not share any changes I make with them. They explicitly told me this when they released it under MIT/BSD. That's their choice, and they are free to make it. I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. As is my choice. If I spend time working on their code, my changes are going to be released under the GPL, because I don't want my code to be used in closed source software. Where's the problem? So yeah, it sucks that they can't re-use my code. But that's their choice. And I'm assuming they're happy with their choice because of the license they chose. if they weren't happy with this arrangement, they'd have chosen the GPL. [edit] Also, even if I do this, I am still sharing my code with them, as long as they are happy to keep it out of closed source products. If they think it's more important that people can write closed source software with their code, than integrate my code into theirs, that's fine. Again, their choice. Everyone is free to do what they want. Even people who write closed source software. They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine.

jedahan 13y ago

http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. Then that annoying all caps standard 'I AM NOT HELD LIABLE' sentence: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Done :D

tjaerv 13y ago

Plenty of public domain software on GitHub, with more being created all the time: https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jballanc 13y ago

Giving stuff away without a license can be hazardous to your livelihood. This is due to the concept of "Implied Warranty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty), which says that anything you sell must be suitable for its intended purpose. This means that the fruit that you buy at the store cannot be spoiled, and the software that you sell should be free of serious bugs. "Wait," you're thinking, "I didn't say sell. I said give away!" Ah, yes, but were you planning on accepting pull requests? Because exchange of money is not the only way to sell something. There is also the concept of "In Kind" payment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind). So, you make a library with something like a WTFPL license attached. I download your library and use it for my product. Then, to show my gratitude, I submit a pull request with a new feature to one of your other projects (an "In Kind" payment). Later, I find that your first library has a bug that's causing problems for my customers... ...so I sue you for violating the Implied Warranty that you didn't disclaim in your WTFPL license. This is why all of those open source licenses have the ANNOYING ALL CAPS clauses explicitly disclaiming any implied warranty. The More You Know!™

belorn 13y ago
In kind is particular tricky legal aspect regarding software. In a previous comment, I wonder if services that take data as payment in exchange for service should be taxed. It would put pressure on companies like google to either stop taking in data, or pay per data point. I can see however that taking that viewpoint would put many other tit for tat in question. So, as far as in kind is viewed by the state, software has been left alone.

zookatron 13y ago

I prefer to use the Unlicense for this: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/ It's just about as permissive as you can get and it's more professional that the WTFPL license.

tjaerv 13y ago
Looks like you're in good company, as well: https://github.com/search?q=Unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed https://github.com/search?q=Unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed
belorn 13y ago
An actually answer to the OP that fulfill the requirement of the requested license. MIT license do not fulfill, as it require copyright notice and permission notice. WTFPL do not fulfill the requirement, as it require edited software to change name. Unlicense do fulfill the OPs requirements. It really deserve to be upvoted above the MIT suggestion.

wahnfrieden 13y ago

You're actually creating more obstacles to using your code if you release it under a license that hasn't been vetted by any lawyers. Many companies have their lawyers approve of a given license before adopting code under it, and because of this friction, often it's simpler to just have a company-wide policy to only allow use of code under X, Y or Z licenses and none others. Please just use MIT or BSD.