No, you're both wrong. Licenses don't add anything but restrictions to giving something away without conditions, how could they? How could a page full of legal bullshit ever make anyone more free? I know that's the story you were told, I've been up there on the barricades, but enough is enough. Outside of corporations, and I don't give a damn about corporations, licenses add nothing but headaches, division and wasted effort. I'm sorry about the community standards, you should know better than to play their game for them.
/fncodr Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 22:19:25 UTC+2 skrev Stefan Karpinski: > > Also, please don't use phrases like "got your panties in a knot" – this > is a violation of the Julia community standards > <http://julialang.org/community/standards/>. > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> 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] >> <javascript:>> 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! >>> >>> >>> >> >
