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?
"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...
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...
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)
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:
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.
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,...