On 29/03/2013 00:28, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Joshua Holbrook > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Interesting discussion! Unfortunately this does not change the fact that I >> am INCREDIBLY LAZY. Typing "License: MIT" is easy. > > Then why not use a license that doesn't require the license text be > included when redistributing your work, so people using your code can > legally be lazy too? Here's one that most of the people in this > thread will find fitting: > http://www.wtfpl.net/
What The Fuck Public License Version 2 Even with that you're not sure it's the right license without the full text of it or a permanent link to the text. And including the text is simpler than maintaining a permanent link. > People whining about this are ridiculous. The "you must include a > copy of the license text" thing is the *only* restriction in the MIT > license, otherwise it would be pretty much equivalent to putting your > work in the public domain. If you have a problem with that > restriction, use a license that doesn't have it. Mind that "public domain" is not so obvious to understand : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm Jérémy. -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
