On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:28:48PM -0400, Lee Fallat wrote: [GPL quoted in full]
Could you please take the time to shorten your quotes to the part you actually want to reply to? > I've come to adopt the NoLicenseLicense, for sole reason of > demonstrating to people that many of us code for the sake of fun. > > NoLicenseLicense.txt > There is no license attached to this software, enjoy. > Oh goodie, this means no usage for me, then. After all, no licence means the default state applies, which is "All rights reserved by the author". There is no need to actually claim the copyright or write that sentence out, by the way. > ...Yes this is a joke. If you are interested in these types of > "Licenses", also check out WTFPL- you'll enjoy it! > The WTFPL on the other hand is, barring relicensing in the future, equivalent to placing your work in the public domain. To me, licensing comes down to more or less three choices: A) Do I think this may be profitable to someone else in the future? If so, do I want a piece of that? If so: Use something copyleft with the option of commercial relicensing in the future. GPL will do in a pinch. B) Just something I scribbled up in my free time with no budget or effort behind it? Or genuinely important code for others to see (highly unlikely)? If so: Public Domain or whatever your local law calls it. C) Looking to sell it for profit later? Commercial license it is! At the moment, my local projects all fall into category B. JM2C, Markus
