Redpill me on the most permissive software license. MIT? Apache? CC0? Discuss.
Redpill me on the most permissive software license. MIT? Apache? CC0? Discuss
Nathan Gonzalez
Other urls found in this thread:
sqlite.org
openbsd.org
softwareengineering.stackexchange.com
opensource.org
wiki.creativecommons.org
twitter.com
Jose Adams
inb4 freetards invent a 'please daddy' license
Nathaniel Ward
cc0, obviously
Gabriel Perry
The Unlicense
Ryder Cruz
BSD
Hudson Cruz
wtfpl
Gavin Lewis
The most permissive is explicitly give up your own copyright and put your work in the public domain.
James Bennett
Thoughts on the legality of Unlicense vs. CC0 vs. WTFPL? Ideally something that's recognized in (virtually) all jurisdictions worldwide, and is unlikely to get stricken as "invalid".
Caleb Diaz
For example SQLite has no copyright at all:
sqlite.org
Wyatt Foster
Public domain
Connor Stewart
The OpenBSD people, who have studied this problem carefully, settled on the ISC license.
Zachary Kelly
Some jurisdictions don't allow you to dedicate works to the public domain, which is why you need one of the licenses that contain fallbacks to cover your ass.
Ethan Baker
You can have a statement dedicating to public domain, and separately license under something like ISC/BSD/MIT
Ian Ramirez
>Unlicense
pointless, assuming you are the main contributor to a project, any future contributions you make can come with completely different terms. it's in the public domain, anyone including can do anything with it (eg a commercial distribution) including yourself.
now... a REAL cuck-license would stipulate an extension to the concept of public domain that excludes yourself...
Isaac Gonzalez
softwareengineering.stackexchange.com
Is the Unlicense considered legally valid in Germany?
Nicholas James
Is CC0 more or less permissive than WTFPL and Unlicense?
Cameron Martinez
Lmao licenses are for fucking nerds. I fork the project and work on whatever I want and release it as whatever I want. That's my license. It's open source and your retarded pseudo legalities do nothing.
Carter Collins
Re. CC0: opensource.org
CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application. The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4(a), which reads: "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.". While many open source licenses simply do not mention patents, it is exceedingly rare for open source licenses to explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights, and the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0.
Isaiah James
>Lmao licenses are for fucking nerds.
Brainlet.
Dominic Wilson
Dominic Sullivan
I don't get the difference between BSD-2 Clause and MIT. All I want from code is when nigger uses it there will be my name in it.
Cameron Edwards
Basically this. I don't want to care about licences, ever, but I respect them. I don't get why people need to release several versions of code and for companies it's not GPL while for individuals it's GPL or whatever. Things like these make me just to not give a fuck and search for alternative.