It’s just data

License Wish

Patrick Mueller My biggest issue is if someone used some art which identified me, or even worse, other folks, in a way I, or the person identified, wasn’t happy about.

Bingo.  I’ve mocked the CC in the past, but quite frankly, I’m not happy with any of the popular license choices.  My focus isn’t on maximizing my revenue, avoiding becoming “exploited”, or even changing the world; instead it is on minimizing my obligations.

Quite often I have people asking me if they can make use of my code — all the while assuring me that they will give me my due credit.  I wish there was a license that says the opposite; credit me only if you feel you must, otherwise if you take the time and effort to remove all identifying characteristics from the work, feel free to modify, use, and perhaps even sell it as you see fit.


I assume there’s something about removing identifying remarks yourself and putting it in the public domain that you don’t like?

Posted by Craig Andera at

Nicely put. The CC selector used to have a “Public Domain” option, which was my first choice for flickr, but now BY: seems to be a flag you can’t turn off.

Posted by Paul Downey at

I assume there’s something about removing identifying remarks yourself and putting it in the public domain that you don’t like?

The following comes closest to my understanding of the concept of public domain: [link]

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Could this be something of a generation[al] e-gap?

Posted by Justin Watt at

Justin: I guess that would depend on which way you meant that.  :-)

Is it

Posted by Sam Ruby at

See [link] :)

Posted by Dalibor Topic at

Dalibor: Thanks!  I definitely will be using that in the future.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

[from breakdown] Sam Ruby: License Wish

"I wish there was a license that says the opposite; credit me only if you feel you must, otherwise if you take the time and effort to remove all identifying characteristics from the work, feel free to modify, use, and perhaps even sell it as you see...

Excerpt from del.icio.us/network/crankycoder at

Sam Ruby, License Wish: Bingo.

Sam Ruby, License Wish: Bingo. I’ve mocked the CC in the past, but quite frankly, I’m not happy with any of the popular license choices. My focus isn’t on maximizing my revenue, avoiding becoming “exploited”, or even changing the world; instead it...

Excerpt from Micah Sittig: Blogs at

We can probably agree that at some point (either in the present or the recent past), the number of people writing code (to be freely used by others) was relatively small. However, as the number of people writing code increases I think the concerns you raise (about the obligations of code maintenance and support) will be much less an issue. Why? Because code-users will also be code-creators, and in that dual role people will develop a better sense of what they can and cannot expect of code-creators.

The generational e-gap is: do you hold back the code you create for fear of a perceived obligation?

(As an aside, I have to say this is an amusing exchange given your work on Atom, the FeedValidator, and now Planet/Venus using bzr)

Posted by Justin Watt at

The WTFPL isn’t a zero-obligation licence. Such a licence would have to have a clause to the effect that if it breaks you can keep both pieces and I’m not liable. Further, while I don’t care much about credit, but I do care about appropriation of credit, so I’d want to impose exactly one obligation (which isn’t much of one): “don’t claim you wrote it.” In short, my ideal licence would state:

Follows the rule of three as a nice bonus.

Posted by Aristotle Pagaltzis at

Aristotle, the zlib license seems to be what you want. It is my original favorite, but I am now licensing software using the MIT/expat license, because I happen to have code under that license and getting a better but less-known wording on some code doesn’t seem to be worth the confusion of having two licenses.

Posted by Henri Sivonen at

The generational e-gap is: do you hold back the code you create for fear of a perceived obligation?

No.  But I do hold back on placing a license on my work.

(As an aside, I have to say this is an amusing exchange given your work on Atom, the FeedValidator, and now Planet/Venus using bzr)

Only if you have a preconceived notion on where I fall in that generational divide.  :-)

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Do you talk about license for Programming Code? Or license for photos? or license for writings?
Do you talk about licensing your production?
Do you talk about licenses on work you appear (photos)?

From the post It’s very difficult to know and then to… give an opinion.

Posted by karl at

Do everyone a favor. Just use Apache 2. It’s the gold standard of licenses. See
[link]

The more people that use it the better. If all goes well folks will tend to favor Apache2 over gpl/lgpl, especially given the gplv3-madness that is running amok.

thanks,
dave

Posted by dave shields at

The FSF consider the Apache Software License, version 2.0 to be incompatible with GPL V2.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Public Domain Dilemmas

If I “dedicate” a digital photo to the public domain, have I dedicated the specific arrangement of pixels that make up that photo—or have I dedicated the more general visual image, the concept of that photo, if you will? In the case of the former,...

Excerpt from Justinsomnia at

Add your comment