I currently use my own license, and to really clarify how I feel about licensing, I have called it the NON-LICENSE. I would be really nice if there was some way to tell the repo that there is a license included, or if sourcehut would be detect files with LICENSE in the name. Because it's kind of annoying to see the license disclaimer on my repos when I know I included a license. I understand if this isn't something anyone would be interested in, but I just thought I'd bring it up.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
No. The policy is not to continue to expand the detection to support the
innumerable conventions that the human race will come up with, but to
tell projects to start conforming to the conventions we already support.
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 03:53:58PM +0000, ValleyKnight wrote:
> I currently use my own license, and to really clarify how I feel about licensing, I have called it the NON-LICENSE. I would be really nice if there was some way to tell the repo that there is a license included, or if sourcehut would be detect files with LICENSE in the name. Because it's kind of annoying to see the license disclaimer on my repos when I know I included a license. I understand if this isn't something anyone would be interested in, but I just thought I'd bring it up.
Why not just make your project follow the structure defined in the REUSE
project:
https://reuse.software/
which should have enough specifications and structure to define whatever
you want in a way that anyone can understand.
And if your license somehow isn't covered by the SPDX project, please
work with them to add the missing one.
And there is no such thing as a "non-license", talk to any lawyer for
explainations about this before you try to perpetrate such a thing :)
good luck!
greg k-h
Sorry for the late response, I quickly realized that ProtonMail's web
interface is garbage for mailing lists.
So I set up Hydroxide and Thunderbird.
> No. The policy is not to continue to expand the detection to support the
> innumerable conventions that the human race will come up with, but to
> tell projects to start conforming to the conventions we already support.
All right, I understand your point.
I'll just put in my READMEs that there is indeed a license and link to
them.
I appreciate the fast response.
> And there is no such thing as a "non-license", talk to any lawyer for
> explainations about this before you try to perpetrate such a thing :)
I know there isn't. Software licensing has caused me many meltdowns, so
I made my own license to show just how much I hate it. This is purely
for me. I feel better knowing that I'm using a license with *my* own
terms. I fully understand if people don't even want to touch my projects
because of it, I just personally want myself to feel better. I almost
flat out quit software development because of licensing.
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 05:16:24PM +0000, ValleyKnight wrote:
> > And there is no such thing as a "non-license", talk to any lawyer for> > explainations about this before you try to perpetrate such a thing :)> > I know there isn't. Software licensing has caused me many meltdowns, so > I made my own license to show just how much I hate it. This is purely > for me. I feel better knowing that I'm using a license with *my* own > terms. I fully understand if people don't even want to touch my projects > because of it, I just personally want myself to feel better. I almost > flat out quit software development because of licensing.
Be _VERY_ careful about putting anything out there on "your own terms",
as that will, without exception, come back to be worse then you can
possibly imagine.
Either pick a license that is already out there, or just mark everything
as "proprietary and not for use by anyone". Or better yet, don't put it
in public at all, as that sounds what you really want to do here.
Best of luck! And don't meltdown over licenses, there are far too many
more important things in life to meltdown over, pick something more
consequential next time, you'll feel better over it :)
good luck!
greg k-h
On Sun Nov 8, 2020 at 2:30 PM EDT, Greg KH wrote:
> Best of luck! And don't meltdown over licenses, there are far too many> more important things in life to meltdown over, pick something more> consequential next time, you'll feel better over it :)
I'll re-iterate this sentiment. Just pick one and roll with it. It's not
really worth it to possibly cripple your software over a mis-placed
sense of rage at the fact that we have a system which would involve
licenses at all.
> Be _VERY_ careful about putting anything out there on "your own
terms", as that will, without exception, come back to be worse then you
can possibly imagine.
I know. My terms are very simple, anyone can do anything they want and
that all copyright restrictions are revoked.
> Or better yet, don't put it in public at all, as that sounds what you
really want to do here.
That's actually the opposite. I want my software to be 100% public
domain without any restrictions at all. I know I'd probably be better
off with a pre-existing license, but I just hate them all. They all
leave me with this disgusting horrible feeling that would make me rather
just get off the computer and go outside.
> mis-placed sense of rage
I know that it's misplaced. I have very out-there thoughts that I'm very
stubborn about. But they are very overpowering, to the point where if I
don't succumb to them I will break down. Just thinking about licensing a
little while ago, I hated everything so much that I nearly erased
everything I shared from the internet. I was barely able to keep on
going with software development because of encouragement from people on
Mastodon and Discord.
Try WTPFL, it'll both channel your rage AND not run into all of the
problems of rolling your own bad license:
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
> Try WTPFL
I have, but I don't like that either. I hate the usage of license-speak,
and I hate the fact that it even carries a copyright all.
This is what I ended up doing for my license (NON-LICENSE.md):
```
Anybody, is allowed to do anything, with this software.
*Any and all copyright restrictions are hereby revoked.*
```
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 06:45:52PM +0000, ValleyKnight wrote:
> > Be _VERY_ careful about putting anything out there on "your own > terms", as that will, without exception, come back to be worse then you > can possibly imagine.> > I know. My terms are very simple, anyone can do anything they want and > that all copyright restrictions are revoked.
While you might feel that is "simple", again, please talk to a lawyer
about why such a thing really is not true, and in some places in the
world, an impossibility (which is a good thing, trust me.)
So again, by trying to make things "simple", you just made them far far
more complicated than you can ever imagine. Ensuruing yourself even
more work and complexity than you would have if you had just picked
something else that works much the same way. We have real licenses that
do this, just pick that instead.
Please.
> That's actually the opposite. I want my software to be 100% public > domain without any restrictions at all. I know I'd probably be better > off with a pre-existing license, but I just hate them all. They all > leave me with this disgusting horrible feeling that would make me rather > just get off the computer and go outside.
Again, this is the world that we live in, so you can either work with it
by taking the current copyright and license rules and turning them on
their head against themselves as most open source licenses do, or you
can just make the code closed source, like traditional copyright rules
cause to have happen.
You can't just ignore it, sorry. It's like gravity, it doesn't require
you to believe in it for it to affect you, and you can't run away from
it.
> > mis-placed sense of rage> > I know that it's misplaced. I have very out-there thoughts that I'm very > stubborn about. But they are very overpowering, to the point where if I > don't succumb to them I will break down. Just thinking about licensing a > little while ago, I hated everything so much that I nearly erased > everything I shared from the internet. I was barely able to keep on > going with software development because of encouragement from people on > Mastodon and Discord.
Getting off of social media is key no matter what, but don't let that
rage cause you go create something that actually does the opposite of
your intended goal.
But a nice walk in the outside does sound like it would do you some
good. I know it helped me this weekend :)
Best of luck,
greg k-h
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 02:46:24PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Try WTPFL, it'll both channel your rage AND not run into all of the> problems of rolling your own bad license:> > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE> Version 2, December 2004> > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>> > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified> copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long> as the name is changed.> > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION> > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
Yes, that's a fine license, and one recognized by SPDX:
https://spdx.org/licenses/WTFPL.html
Use the "WTFPL" identifier and everyone should be happy :)
On 11/8/20 1:46 PM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Try WTPFL, it'll both channel your rage AND not run into all of the > problems of rolling your own bad license:
Personally, I prefer the https://unlicense.org/ which also tries to put
the software in the public domain (where possible).
https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.htmlhttps://opensource.org/licenses/unlicense
They do, however, suggest the same alternative naming...
> You would traditionally put the above statement into a file named> COPYING or LICENSE. However, to explicitly distance yourself from the> whole concept of copyright licensing, we recommend that you put your> unlicensing statement in a file named UNLICENSE.
That being said, you can create a symlink "LICENSE" pointing to the file
"UNLICENSE" and sourcehut accepts this.
e.g.
https://git.sr.ht/~eschwartz/pkgbuilds/
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 02:37:08PM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> That being said, you can create a symlink "LICENSE" pointing to the file> "UNLICENSE" and sourcehut accepts this.
This. This allows software authors to include their own preferred license file
under their preferred file name, and yet have a commonly accepted and
discoverable entry point ("LICENSE" file) that any tool should be able to pick
up and use. I do not see any downside to this approach.
>> That being said, you can create a symlink "LICENSE" pointing to the
file
>> "UNLICENSE" and sourcehut accepts this.>> I do not see any downside to this approach.
Well, it means that there's an extra entry in the directory that doesn't
need to be there.
Whether this is a downside is up for debate. Personally, I think it makes
mores sense to just use the LICENSE file instead of using a symlink.
> You can't just ignore it, sorry. It's like gravity, it doesn't
require you to believe in it for it to affect you, and you can't run
away from it.
I just... need some time to think. For the time being, I'll symlink
LICENSE to NON-LICENSE.md.
I honestly don't know if I could go back to use a pre-existing licenses.
This truly bothers me a lot.
Every license I've looked at or used just fills me with disgust, and dread.
It's almost not worth sharing what I make if I have to go back to them.
I can't stand license-speak, I can't stand copyright, and I truly can't
stand having to use a license at all.
We should be freely allowed go give up all rights if we want to.
We shouldn't have to go to great lengths to opt out of copyright entirely.
On 11/8/20 3:36 PM, ValleyKnight wrote:
> > You can't just ignore it, sorry. It's like gravity, it doesn't > require you to believe in it for it to affect you, and you can't run > away from it.> > I just... need some time to think. For the time being, I'll symlink > LICENSE to NON-LICENSE.md.> > I honestly don't know if I could go back to use a pre-existing licenses. > This truly bothers me a lot.> > Every license I've looked at or used just fills me with disgust, and dread.> > It's almost not worth sharing what I make if I have to go back to them.> > I can't stand license-speak, I can't stand copyright, and I truly can't > stand having to use a license at all.> > We should be freely allowed go give up all rights if we want to.> > We shouldn't have to go to great lengths to opt out of copyright entirely.
I feel like this (as I mentioned above) should be exactly what you want,
though:
# The Unlicense
To opt out of the copyright industry's game altogether and set your code
free, put your next software project into the public domain using the
following (un)licensing statement:
```
This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.
In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>
```
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
I don't like the unlicense either. You shouldn't need multiple paragraphs.
Maybe if only the first line was included. Aghh, I just can't. I can't.
This is why I made a 2 line license.
I know it probably can't be upheld in court.
I know others could take advantage of the license.
I know I should probably go with a pre-existing license.
But I just can't. I don't care about any of that.
I don't want fame, I don't want money, I don't even want recognition.
And I shouldn't even need a license in the first place to reflect that.
But if I have to, I'd rather use my own license.
Even if it's just to make myself feel better.
Even if it's a stupid decision.
> but just people refusing to use your software.
Then I really should just remove my software from the internet then.
I really shouldn't bother with sharing anything.
Software development isn't for me.
I'm simply just not compatible with the rest of the group.
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 15:54, ValleyKnight <ValleyKnight@protonmail.com> wrote:> >> but just people refusing to use your software.> > Then I really should just remove my software from the internet then.> > I really shouldn't bother with sharing anything.> > Software development isn't for me.> > I'm simply just not compatible with the rest of the group.>
Sorry for the unsolicited advice, but have you considered
going to a therapist? This is a particularly stressed reaction
to have to a few lines of legalese. Best of luck :)
There's nothing else to really say.
I know I'm an idiot with crazy ideas.
Nobody seems to understand how much software licensing truly aggravates me.
This has been slowly building up for years.
I'm just now realizing how much this truly affects me.
I can clearly see now how incompatible I am with other programmers and
the software development ecosystem.
Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
It won't help you with hating having a license at all, but you might be
interested in the Center for Plain Language
(https://centerforplainlanguage.org/). The TL;DR is that there's nothing
magical about legalese, and no reason to continue using it, people just
do because they don't want to risk their words being twisted and used
against them when they could use a tried and true formulation that's
been litigated and is well understood. The Center for Plain Language
advocates for using normal language in the law.
—Sam
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, at 15:36, ValleyKnight wrote:
> I can't stand license-speak, I can't stand copyright, and I truly> can't stand having to use a license at all.
On Sun Nov 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM EST, ValleyKnight wrote:
> I can clearly see now how incompatible I am with other programmers and> the software development ecosystem.>> Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
Some may not like it, but they accept and work within the legal
guidlines so that others may benifit from their software. That is the
main goal, people using your stuff that they find helpful. The license
is just a means of security for "user rights".
Sorry to hear it stresses you so much, hopefully one day your
perspective on licenses will allow for less stress. I'm not sure who it
was but someone listed a couple of good license that pretty much allows
for whatever, which appears to be what you are looking for.
Jordan
Hi,
You might have received more feedback than you bargained for already, so
I apologize if my message feels like more knife-twisting; I merely
empathize with your position and thought I'd chime in on the off-chance
that my thoughts on this can help.
ValleyKnight <ValleyKnight@protonmail.com> writes:
> You shouldn't need multiple paragraphs.
FWIW, the most permissive licenses I could find boil down to just two:
1. grant full permission to the user,
2. disclaim any warranty.
As long as we live in a world where we can't assume someone publishing
code also inherently does these two things, IIUC this is as short as we
can go.
You want to make your software available to everyone and I think you
won't find anyone on this list who does not find this commendable (thank
you for that btw). Unfortunately your fellow hacker is as stuck in this
copyright-laden world as you are; if you're going the extra mile to make
your software free, please also consider helping them out by choosing a
license that lets them sleep easy :)
> I don't want fame, I don't want money, I don't even want recognition.
I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but what I have found
very annoying with "mainstream" licenses, even permissive ones, is the
"attribution clause", i.e. the obligation for users of my code to retain
my copyright notice.
Luckily, there's now a selection of OSI-approved licenses which do away
with this clause: the Unlicense and MIT-0 (≠ MIT) are somewhat verbose,
but 0BSD is as concise as it gets:
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for> any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL> WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE> AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL> DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR> PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER> TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR> PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Granted, the half-kilobyte of shouting is obnoxious, but believe it or
not all-caps wall-of-texts apparently carry some legal weight (they're
"conspicuous" y'see, so it "demonstrates" that you're not trying to hide
the disclaimer and cheat your user…).
Sorry if this only manages to upset you further. I agree it is all
quite disheartening; I can only rehash what I said above: if you have
the kindness to share your work, please grit your teeth and also slap an
FSF- and/or OSI-approved license on it. Hackers around the world will
thank you for it.
Thanks for your time.