Hacker News Reader

Comment by hutzlibu | Hacker News Reader

Ok, to answer my own question of why not:

because the various legal systems regarding copyright are a abomination, that simply do not allow me legally to waive my rights.

CC0 claims to waive my rights to the fullest extend, but reserves my right to file a patent. Not what I want.

The closest seems the unlicence:

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Unlicense

(but it seems not recommended by GNU, for whatever reason - they recommend the CC0 instead)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense

This is annoying because I just want to make it clear and simple for anyone without doubt, that my project shall be free for any use, any time. A layperson cannot divide between all the various GPL, LGPL, MIT, etc.

So unlicence is my current favorite, until I find the caveat.

View on HN

I would expect that open source developers will best know the implications of GPL and MIT licences, with LGPL, BSD* and Apache2 following next. I have personally never head of Unlicense before even though I was involved in many open source projects.

However, using CC0 probably won't do much harm either.

I wouldn't be nearly so scared from just using the MIT licence. It's simple, nearly everyone knows it (because a huge amount of projects already use it) and it's easy to google for whoever doesn't. Don't do something exotic if you actually don't have specific needs.

This. Unusual licenses are more hassle than established ones, even if the unusual one tries to be less restrictive.

> but reserves my right to file a patent.

The Unlicense also does not include a patent grant, so is no different than CC0 here, and as the FSF says, CC0 is generally recommended over it.

It doesn't really reserve your right to file a patent (because that's basically gone once you publish something in most cases), but it doesn't imply a license to patents you do hold when publishing.

"It doesn't really reserve your right to file a patent (because that's basically gone once you publish something in most cases)"

This is also how I thought it works.

" but it doesn't imply a license to patents you do hold when publishing."

So since I do not hold any patents, stating just this, could be enough? That stuff gives you a headache

Rust and many projects using it dual license under Apache2 and MIT. The former for patents and the latter for pervasive OSS license compatibility.

Discussion: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rationale-of-apache-dual-l...

(Not a licence expert) There's the Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License:

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.

http://www.wtfpl.net/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

This license is typically laughed at by corporate legal departments.

We've had countless software license audits and any sign of WTFPL is always a red flag in the audits' reports.

CC0, on the other hand, passes with flying colors.

To be honest, I don't know why WTFPL fails, whether by its scarcity or tone. I'd love someone to share a knowledgeable hint on this.

curious how the Unlicense is viewed by legal? I've been throwing that on all my projects since I learned about it before CC0 and it's now a habit.

AFAICT, the perception of Unlicense is becoming better. It was receiving weird looks some years ago, mostly because of its name ("Unlicense? You can't un-license something") but once past that, the contents are satisfying enough and it's been better accepted.

Remind that it's just a data point though. #notALawyer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com