Use a working license instead of UNLICENSE

[Valloric]

[I posted this in your Reddit thread, but it should be an actual issue.]

Please don't use UNLICENSE for your license. It doesn't actually work. All uses of UNLICENSE can be replaced with uses of the Apache 2 license (which actually works); you get the same "do whatever you want with it" support without causing your users pain because your license makes no legal sense.

Apache 2 really is what you want; unlike the MIT license, it covers the following as well:

• Any patches you receive are also licensed under Apache 2. MIT says nothing on this and thus leaves any project using it in a weird state after merging in external contributions.
• It gives a patent license as well.
• Other minor useful tidbits.

I've made the mistake of using UNLICENSE myself before; learn from my experience.

[BurntSushi]

If you or anyone else who wants to use my code has an actual problem using it, then please let me know. We'll work something out.

When given a choice, I will always prefer copyfree licenses. The Apache licenses are not copyfree because it places restrictions on derivative works.

[robinst]

With this license, you're excluding it from being used in any Apache or Eclipse project:

https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#3RDPARTY

An exotic license will just mean less users in the worst case. What's wrong with MIT?

[BurntSushi]

With this license, you're excluding it from being used in any Apache or Eclipse project:

I see nothing in those links that justifies this claim.

An exotic license will just mean less users in the worst case.

I've been using "exotic" licenses like the WTFPL and the UNLICENSE for years. This issue has been the only thing resembling a problem. (And nobody actually has a problem.)

What's wrong with MIT?

Nothing in practice. From unlicense.org:

The Unlicense is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain. It combines a copyright waiver patterned after the very successful public domain SQLite project with the no-warranty statement from the widely-used MIT/X11 license.

That is why I use it. If it's good enough for SQLite, then it's good enough for me.

[robinst]

Eclipse does not list the license as acceptable (to be fair, it also doesn't list it as not acceptable). So if someone wants to use it, they now have to go contact the Eclipse lawyers. Yay lawyers.

I've been using "exotic" licenses like the WTFPL and the UNLICENSE for years. This issue has been the only thing resembling a problem. (And nobody actually has a problem.)

That's the thing with licenses, nobody pays much attention until the license has to be inspected. Choosing a relatively unknown license just causes unnecessary hesitation for those that try to pay attention.

That is why I use it. If it's good enough for SQLite, then it's good enough for me.

It looks like it is not really the same as SQLite's though.

Oh well, never mind, please go on creating awesome software :). Just please don't create a new license yourself ;).

[Valloric]

If it's good enough for SQLite, then it's good enough for me.

That's not the license SQLite uses! Please read the link I provided: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html

(And nobody actually has a problem.)

We're trying to help you out. By using the UNLICENSE or the WTFPL (which are called "crayon" licenses by lawyers in OSS) you are actively making it harder for others to use your code. There are people who don't care about code copyright (and who couldn't care less what license if any you use) and then there are those who work for large companies and can't use your software because their legal department says your license is a joke they can't rely on with a straight face.

Both of us may hate the fact that code licenses are necessary (I know I sure do) but that doesn't change the planet we live on.

Please be practical.

[Valloric]

BTW, here's a relevant part from SQLite's copyright page:

Even though SQLite is in the public domain and does not require a license, some users want to obtain a license anyway. Some reasons for obtaining a license include:

1. You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
2. You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain.
3. You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.
4. Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.

They have themselves encountered many problems with putting code in the public domain (which is BTW a concept from US copyright law that does not exist in other countries).

Furthermore, from the same page:

In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, all new contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their contributions to the public domain.

The SQLite project asks all contributors to explicitly contribute to the public domain. Will you do that for every pull request you receive? Note that every contributor must explicitly provide such a public domain statement. If not, then all those code contributions are NOT in the public domain.

This is something the MIT license doesn't cover but Apache v2 does.

[BurntSushi]

That's not the license SQLite uses! Please read the link I provided:

The UNLICENSE is modeled after SQLite's license.

I read your link. In fact, I read it a long time ago. Please don't mistake my curtness for ignorance on the topic.

We're trying to help you out.

This is not an issue that I take lightly. You claim you are for the same things (licenses suck), which I believe, but this doesn't mean we must choose to express those beliefs in the same way.

This isn't a decision I made lightly. I chose the UNLICENSE not just because I care about attempting to opt out of copyright but because it is one way to evangelize alternative licensing schemes.

The trade off is not lost on me. The license is not widely used and so it may scare people away. But this is a chicken and egg problem. If I want more people to opt out of software licensing, then we have to start somewhere.

With all that said, I care very deeply about others using my software. Therefore, I am happy to seek to resolve any problems that crop up that _actually_ prevent you from using anything I write in practice. This has never been a problem before (this includes individuals as well as companies like Mozilla and CoreOS).

The SQLite project asks all contributors to explicitly contribute to the public domain. Will you do that for every pull request you receive?

If it comes to that. Note that the UNLICENSE isn't just "public domain." It exists precisely in cases where "public domain" is tricky to get right.

This is something the MIT license doesn't cover but Apache v2 does.

There are a gagillion open source software projects operating successfully with MIT or Simplified BSD style licenses. Your concerns about MIT vs. Apache v2 therefore seem unwarranted. Sorry.

As I said, the Apache licenses are not copyfree. Therefore, I will not use them (ceteris paribus).

I'm sorry that we don't see eye to eye on this issue. I find it very difficult to balance practicality with evangelism, but I will hold on to this small piece of expression for as long as I can. Simply showing me a link to a rant and expressing concerns of what-may-be just aren't enough reasons for me.

[robinst]

FWIW, here's FSF's stance on Unlicense:

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

You're trying to "opt out" of licensing? There's one thing you don't seem to realize: without a license, others don't have any rights. The whole point of licenses is to give you certain rights, however limited they may be.

Also, that copy-free propaganda seems to be objecting to licenses which do nothing more than requiring the name to be changed or similar.

Are you telling me you would not care the slightest if someone else made a fork of your project under the same name and claimed that they made it?

[BurntSushi]

You're trying to "opt out" of licensing? There's one thing you don't seem to realize: without a license

Good thing this library is licensed under the UNLICENSE then.

Also, that copy-free propaganda seems to be objecting to licenses which do nothing more than requiring the name to be changed or similar.

The "copyfree propaganda" objects to anything that requires some kind of intellectual property law to be in place. (This includes copyright, patents, trademarks, etc...)

Are you telling me you would not care the slightest if someone else made a fork of your project under the same name and claimed that they made it?

Of course I'd care. It's plagiarism. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your question?

It's pointless to argue with you because you're obviously being a troll. For one, you completely skipped two lines.

Of course I'd care. It's plagiarism. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your question?

If you care, then why are you using a license that basically gives people the right to do that?

I just realized that the Apache 2.0 License has some restrictions I wasn't aware of, but my point still stands.

[BurntSushi]

I've been using the UNLICENSE and the WTFPL for years, and now I'm defending that choice on my own issue tracker. And that's considered trolling? Yikes.

No, "defending your choice" is not what is trolling. Picking out specific parts from my response and ignoring the rest is what is trolling.