On 01/16/2015 11:16 AM, stephen Turner wrote: > I found a permissive licese same as your 0-clause but listed on the > internet under http://unlicense.org
Yeah, they found me last year: https://twitter.com/theunlicense/status/451665489929183232 Another big public domain license is CC0 from the creative commons guys: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 Or just a simple statement like libtomcrypt and libtommath (at the heart of dropbear) use: https://secure.ucc.asn.au/hg/dropbear/file/8d0c33e8ddab/libtommath/LICENSE https://secure.ucc.asn.au/hg/dropbear/file/8d0c33e8ddab/libtomcrypt/LICENSE The nice thing about the public domain is that if you take code from one such project and put it into another such project, you don't have to change your license text. They're all compatible with each other, they collapse together just like GPL software used to back when there was just one version. (Universal donor vs universal receiver.) The thing about BSD (2/3/4 clause) vs MIT vs Apache is they're all trying to do exactly the same thing, but do so in incompatible ways that make transplanting code between projects awkward. And the _only_ diference between them and public domain licenses is "you must copy this license text verbatim into all derived works", which is exactly the thing that makes them incompatible wih each other. Kinda self-defeating, that. Literally all I did to create my "zero clause BSD" was remove the half-sentence of the 2 clause (netbsd?) license that required you to copy this specific license text verbatim into derived works. http://landley.net/hg/toybox/rev/818 That half-sentence was a _bug_ that causes incompatibility, and performs no other obvious function. The toybox source is on the web. If people do plagiarize it, turns out the internet is really good at finding plagiarism: http://www.miketyndall.com/todd_goldman/ http://time.com/3491095/john-walsh-plagiarism/ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/rand-paul-accused-of-wikipedia-plagiarism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Friendly#Plagiarism http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Cassandra_Claire_Plagiarism_Debacle Note that plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright. You can plagiarize shakespeare or sherlock holmes and that it's not always a bad thing: http://fadeaccompli.tumblr.com/post/108256550398/twinkleofafadingstar-so-charlotte-bronte I want people to use my stuff. I want to make it as easy as possible _for_ them to use my stuff. Attribution is nice, but suing people to get it means something is wrong. I can always write _more_ code... (The busybox license enforcement suits I started in 2006 were never about attribution, they were about getting code into the busybox source repository. I'd inherited Erik Andersen's "hall of shame" and tried to clean up the mess. Once I'd proved that enforcing the license did _not_ result in adding any useful code to the busybox source repository (a dozen or so source tarballs had _nothing_ we wanted), I stopped doing it. Unfortunately I couldn't get the other copyright holders to stop.) I gave a whole talk about this in 2013: Audio: https://archive.org/download/OhioLinuxfest2013/24-Rob_Landley-The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Copyleft.mp3 Outline: http://landley.net/talks/ohio-2013.txt Alas, when I gave that talk I'd edited it down to about 3 hours of material and had a 50 minute timeslot, which made less sense than it should have without the web pages I was showing on the projector, and the video cable kept falling out so there are numerous unexplained pauses. I tried again at Texas LinuxFest but gave myself heatstroke the day before the talk, and didn't really manage to do a _more_ coherent version. I submitted the talk proposal to CELF again this year in hopes I can do a more coherent version and maybe record the associated web pages, a few of which are: http://lu.is/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/ http://www.infoworld.com/article/2611386/open-source-software/github-ceo-backs-mit-open-source-license.html http://readwrite.com/2013/05/15/open-source-is-old-school-says-the-github-generation#awesm=~oDBVWaLSBrm6QD http://efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=106357 http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/7/23/licensing/ Oh, and the wwiv stuff I mentioned near the start of the mp3 was at http://landley.net/history/wwiv/ And the story of the squashfs guy spending _years_ trying to mainline something every Linux distro was already using and still having to take a year off to work on it full time (unpaid!) to finally get it in is here: http://lwn.net/Articles/563578/ Kinda makes the "this code will go upstream due to license reasons" argument seem immensely silly, doesn't it? Oh, and one example of "obvious FUD against the concept public domain" from what you'd think would be the _good_guys_ is: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 And yes that's the lawyer for the Open Source Initiative comparing public domain software to leaving trash by the side of the road. Why? Because if it takes off he's out of a job, that's why. (As for his "legal" argument, contract law and copyright law are distinct things, as are patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, I wrote a week's worth of columns about that 15 years ago, linked at the bottom of: http://landley.net/writing/#iplaw Sorry, as I said. 3 hours of material _after_ editing... Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
