Hacker News Reader

Comment by axegon_ | Hacker News Reader

I've always felt like there's something fundamentally flawed with open source licenses. It seems that they are all promoting the openness of a fragment of code but at the same time twisting your hands ever so slightly when you start using them. All while different licenses are engaged in a fight as to which is more open. For many years I thought that MIT is the most open one. That is until recently when I saw wtfpl [1] and truthfully I fell in love with it. At some point I'll update everything I've ever open sourced to that and I intend to use it for all the other projects I plan on open sourcing, though I am a bit short on motivation to get to that lately(for personal reasons, not because of lack of interest or burnout or anything).

[1] http://www.wtfpl.net/

View on HN

The problem with the WFPL is that it may not be legal in many jurisdictions. I would encourage you to dual license with the WTFPL and a more legally vetted license, such as MIT, to allow your software to be used in a wider variety of jurisdictions.

And thank you for writing open source software!

Edit: The CC0 may be a more legally valid license that accomplishes the same thing.

I've always been a fan of the sqlite licence: https://sqlite.org/copyright.html

Basically sqlite is public domain if your country recognizes that kind of thing. If it doesn't, then sqlite doesn't care and will never pursue you. However, if /you/ care, sqlite will sell you licence. This licence costs $6000, looks very official and shiny and whatnot, covers all your bases as if public domain did exist in your country, and sqlite uses the money to continue funding development.

I'd be inclined to do something very similar with an additional clause stating that if dedicating to the public domain doesn't free me from liability, then see $6000 licence. (I thought sqlite had this, but either they've removed it or I misremember).

Perhaps. The theory is that if someone is to be fully comply to a licence, that means they have to walk the extra mile, like mention it, link it and all that jazz. Which is something I genuinely don't want anyone to go through. Basically "take it, use it, change it, publish it as yours, sell it, whatever you want, by all means, go for it". Which is what the wtfpl is in theory and why I find it so compelling.

The GPL is good at promoting open source software. The WTFPL is very open, but it's not good at promoting open source. Because anyone can take your software and sell it without providing the source code. Very open for the immediate licensee, but not at all for anyone further down the line.

WTFPL is amusing, but it is flawed as a license. It doesn't have the legal language required to safely grant rights.

https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no...

Unlicense[1] and CC0[2] have better legal wording.

[1] https://unlicense.org/

[2] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Legal types don't like the Unlicense either as far as I can tell[1].

You'll find software that is dual licensed CC-0 and something else, too,[2,3] because anything public-domain-ish with no attribution may be perceived as too risky.

[1] https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/147120

[2] https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3/blob/master/LICENSE

[3] https://github.com/LoupVaillant/Monocypher/blob/master/LICEN...

You might like the 0BSD: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD

Unfortunately, people can take your code and make small changes to produce a derivative, which gives them copyright privileges over the derivative. I don't want people using my work to sue others, so these ultra-permissive licenses are a no-go for me.

I'm currently using the AGPL-3.0, but I think I'd be happier with something that ensured that my work remained liberated from copyright rather than forcing people to contribute their patches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com