There are 665 open licences, most are pretty rubbish(csvbase.com) |
There are 665 open licences, most are pretty rubbish(csvbase.com) |
> 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT)
> 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence)
> 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL)
MIT requires attribution, doesn't it? MIT (permissive) / MPL (non-viral copyleft) / AGPL (viral copyleft) seems like a better grouping to me; I rarely find myself reaching for any other licenses.
I do wish there were a shorter copyleft license though. I appreciate how transparent and readable MIT is.
It's just weird that it has "Microsoft" in the name. Though I suppose not much weirder than MIT license being named after a University or BSD license being named after a University's Unix distribution.
Also even Microsoft doesn't use the MS-RL much anymore having standardized more on MPL where they use copyleft licenses and Apache License most everywhere else.
This part confuses me a bit, as the distinction between storing all the code in the same file versus dividing it into separate files is fairly arbitrary. What happens if you have 3 files in your project, one of which contains licensed code, and then zip them together into a single archive for distribution?
Essentially licensing your software like this behaves like ASL unless you: modify + distribute (either binaries or by creating a service). Then you owe the changeset back, but it does not have a viral clause like the AGPL.
This solves a large part of the greedy AWS problem (Amazon copying entire open source projects and contributing nothing back), but also strikes a balance and allows API Compatibility.
But I'm concerned about the compatibility clauses becoming a loophole for hostile forks. Then again, half the point of the EUPL is admitting that only a court can judge what is or isn't a derivative work (unlike the legal fiction in the GPL's viral clause), so I guess these uncertainties are part of the deal.
People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long.
Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.
You hang out with a different crowd than I do then. Perhaps the Satanic Temple should release an open source license to claim the #666 spot.
Brb, dual licensing everything under 0BSD.
Those licenses let me say "This is open to the individual and small business, but not a mega corp" without actually needing to define a hard cut off.
Besides, it's not like most developers of FOSS software that use these have the time/money/energy to bother to sue over infringement anyway, so practically this is their main purpose.
Create real terms. Create demands for your work. Charge something. Charge nothing but require volunteer hours. Do something different. Do something meaningful.
If you’re a small open source author you can afford to be creative. Most of the time no one’s going to give you a cent in the first place. There are ten thousand and one open source projects who haven’t made even $100.00.
You owe no one.