Hi, Reyk Floeter wrote on Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:41:18AM +0200: > Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George <sgeorge...@gmail.com>:
>> I want this information to be available to all without discrimination. >> Which is the best licence I can give them? > the license is your choice ;-) While that is both true and important, there is also a definitive and objective answer to the question, quoting from what i wrote on http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the code as free as it can possibly get. Modifying the wording of these licenses can only result in one of the three following effects: 1. making the code less free by adding additional restrictions regarding its use, copying, modification or distribution; 2. or effectively not changing anything by merely changing the wording, but not changing anything substantial regarding the legal content; 3. or making the license illegal by attempting to deprive the authors of rights they cannot legally give away. Some examples: * The GPL is an example of case 1 (not free). * Allowing anybody to relicence is an example of case 2 when added as an additional right to an ISC license. At first, it might seem that grants an additional right. But that right is utterly useless: The license is already as free as it can be, so relicensing cannot grant additional rights, and relicensing under more restrictive terms is pointless because the code is already available under ISC and will remain so. Note that relicensing permission is *only* irrelevant for ISC and Berkeley 2-clause. If code is under a not fully free license (like GPL or Apache 2.0 or CDDL), then granting the right to relicense suddenly makes the code fully free, because anybody can then go ahead and (legally and morally legitimately) re-release under ISC. * "Do whatever you like with this code" is an example of case 3. It is misleading in so far as the author *still* retains some rights under international law, specifically the Berne Convention, and there are things you are *still* prohibited from doing with the code, and it is not a good idea to mislead the unwary. Besides, it is dangerous because nobody knows whether some judge in some obscure jurisdiction might rule that "whatever you like" is not specific enough to include "distribute changed versions for profit as part of your private business" (or not specific enough for whatever might be considered to require *explicit* permission in that jurisdiction). Or some judge might even rule that is outright invalid in the first place because of the obvious violation of the Berne Convention and consequently grants no rights whatsoever. Using non-standard or fuzzy wording may potentially open you up to surprises in some jurisdictions. Yours, Ingo
