Steven is correct here: licenses are what allow people to use your code, not a mechanism for constraining what people can do – by default they have no rights to your code. If you want to let people do whatever they want with your code, use the MIT license <https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT> or the even more permissive ISC license <https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC>. You can also state that you release the code into the public domain, but that's actually less effective than granting a license like ISC since not all countries have processes for reliably donating works to the public domain (e.g. continental Europe), so people in those countries would not legally be allowed to use your code.
TL;DR: just put the ISC license on it. On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Steven G. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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! > > >
