On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:11:26 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > I gave a statement, on why I don't offer licenses. >
Not offering a license means that no one can copy, modify, or redistribute your code. Saying "Go bananas; use it, break it; embrace and extend it", while it gives some permissions, is actually not sufficient to qualify as open source <https://opensource.org/osd-annotated>. For example, you don't explicitly give permission for people to sell it as part of commercial products, so as a result that usage is prohibited (by default). It took many years for people in scientific computing to realize that licenses were important for example (and as a result the Netlib repository ended up having huge headaches), and there are other prominent examples of problems stemming from software without a license because the authors didn't think they needed one (e.g. qmail). Learn from the bitter experiences of others!
