Thank you In for the detailed explanation. In a code repository should the licence wording be on every file ? Or just in a file named "Licence" in the root folder ?
On Aug 5, 2017 12:49 AM, "Ingo Schwarze" <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > 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 >
