@specter I somewhat disagree, particularly because copyright happens to be a useful tool to prevent companies from exploiting free labor. This applies differently to different software, though... and some people might not be worried about that in the slightest.

I agree that it's pretty annoying to sort through as an individual though. Something I'm planning is to write a "LICENSING.md" in all my repos to explain how the license is intended to be used for newcomers in a more, err, readable manner.

@specter Copyright is incredibly difficult though. It's far too easy to unintentionally permit something you didn't intend, or exclude a use case that you're actually okay with. So on a small scale, I do agree with the general sentiment. But IMO it's better for some things than others.

@fennifith "unintentionally permit something you didn't intend, or exclude a use case that you're actually okay with" what does that mean?

@specter I think the last two paragraphs of the unlicense speak to this a little; words mean different things in different places and it's weird

I recently came across a license intended to permit use by "unionized companies" (can't find the source rn - will update if I do) that seemed to exclude individual businesses in a weird way. Point being, it's difficult to take individual values and translate it into "who can use my software" and licenses are only a generalization of what we really want

@specter In my case, I don't want companies using my software for unethical means, nor do I want others to take unfair advantage of my labor - I want to be able to specify "pricing" for people that profit from my work so that I can get paid for my contributions, and also pay others who help maintain it. However, I still want the source to be available for others to see - mainly for transparency, but also in an individuality sense, I want people to have the freedom to mess with stuff themselves.

@specter When I think about how I view open source, it's more like a "Right to Repair for software" than an idea of unmoderated sharing for every use and purpose. I don't think my work should be free - however, I don't want to gatekeep it for individuals that can't afford "business prices", and I want people to be able to see how the stuff is built and modify it on their own.

@fennifith fair enough I never look at my labor as monetizable, sometimes to my own professional detriment, but especially not in open source. I think then it makes sense to avoid the public domain. I'm aiming at fluorescent lit folks internally screaming at their flakey devtools while taking anxious doses of Slack. I'm not sure I can help, but assuming they find a project of mine that makes their day easier then hell yeah! I'm not gonna burden you with copyright law on top of that

@specter lol, good target audience. And yeah - this is why I think it's good to have a healthy variety of licenses in open source... for people to choose the one that applies to them the best.

Of course now I'm stepping on the toes of people that have experienced "license incompatibility" (a.k.a. needing to release a program that combines several different works for which the licenses have contradictory terms) for whom this idea seems like an absolute atrocity, and I can't blame them.

Copyright is silly

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

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!