Content without a license is not free content!
We'll now pop-up license reminders in case you forgot to add one and to warn users about legal uncertainty.
The reminders might look like this:
Our license reminders have been revised and are working great so far.
It's nice to see that most of you add FLOSS licenses as a very first step, and our reminders have led to some more content now being free.
Sorry for being annoying with these reminders, but it's very important, even for tiny projects, so others can safely improve or build upon. Thank you for caring 💙
Do you have suggestions to the https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#copyleft paragraph and the suggestions below? Feel free to submit a contribution.
@sexybiggetje yes, wanted to add this later, already noticed this looks quite ugly. It's currently more a proof of concept, it also doesn't properly hide the labels that are used for this everywhere, and the user can just remove the banner at the moment.
@codeberg I struggle with that though. I believe intellectual property rights shouldn't exist and getting rid of them would make the world a better place. I consider all the code anyone writes to be free for anyone to to anything they want with.
So in principle, I'm opposed to the need for software licenses. Especially on my own code, as I consider it public domain.
In the spirit of practicing as one preaches, one shouldn't acknowledge #copyright or #IP rights. Which a license file does.
@benjaminpaikjones @codeberg Many licenses retain copyright. Or patent rights. Almost all otherwise restrict or limit what others can do with your code, so you're still acknowledging that your code is somehow your property for you to give away.
You're right that from a pragmatic point of view, it makes sense to explicitly waive all those rights helps others that think similarly but have to deal with government oppression more than myself.
Still, I haven't found a license that I like.
But apart from that, for the free software community, just not using any licenses also works. Since open source projects are not legal entities, they shouldn't really care about what software they copy or use. So the only people that will be bothered by unlicensed projects are entities that do recognize IP rights. Which will incentivizes them to either abandon that position or rally against IP enforcers.
@stevenroose open source projects are written by people. It doesn't matter if an entity has a physical body to move around in, it can still end up in front of a court. So open source projects ignoring other's licenses does not work.
@tokudan An entity doesn't end up in court, a person does. A corporation is also a legal person. And there's people that live outside of jurisdictions of (the respective) copyright. Or projects by anonymous developers. In fact as a side-effect, it would encourage the use of pseudonyms again on the internet. Or encourage living outside of the reach of western copyright.
@stevenroose Ok, it works for those outside the reach of western copyright. Meaning none of the projects on Codeberg, even if the project owner is unknown. Because then Codeberg is on the hook and they're not going to just take it to protect an anonymous person.
@stevenroose Unfortunately, people can be sued for using code that doesn't give express permission to use.
@stevenroose Although one can agree that reserving the copyright should be the default, it's a fact that jurisprudence considers this differently and people can be in real trouble because of this.
So I propose to say "I consider all (my work) as public domain, and to those who live in jurisdictions who consider differently, I'll include a fitting license just in case".
@codeberg But I don't know of any license that does that. Even CC0 explicitly retains trademark and patent rights.
They are complex matters, though, because there's always the external factor of the societal framework. Because if you declare your work public domain, it still grants others the right to use the framework to create IP using your work.
I guess in the spirit of leading by example, that would be the right thing to do. In the spirit of pushing for structural change, it might not.
@stevenroose What do you think about the UNLICENSE or WTFPL? They are not very well tested in court, AFAWCT though, so we recommend against using them.
But they are probably those who are targeted towards those who just want to get licensing out of their way and waive as many rights as possible.
@codeberg I tried using those in the past. I got the occasional complaint from users claiming that they couldn't use the code because of the license.
I had a time that I defaulted to MIT, now generally CC0. Maybe it's time to look at UNLICENSE or WTFPL again.
@stevenroose Yeah, makes sense as this is what was meant by "not well tested in court", many people see issues there and we advise against both licenses.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!