Also, nice to see you again, despite somewhat irrelevant circumstances. Watched you speak in Gothenburg a couple of years ago. Although you were only given an hour, you gave a competent enough impression for me to learn yet another language. Just wanted you to know that something came out of that, for whatever it's worth. Thanks.
/fncodr Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 23:38:31 UTC+2 skrev [email protected]: > > 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]> >> 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]> >>> 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! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
