> Well, although SPDX counts 665 licences, there really just 3 main kinds:
> 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT)
> 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence)
> 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL)
MIT requires attribution, doesn't it? MIT (permissive) / MPL (non-viral copyleft) / AGPL (viral copyleft) seems like a better grouping to me; I rarely find myself reaching for any other licenses.
I do wish there were a shorter copyleft license though. I appreciate how transparent and readable MIT is.
I'm a big fan of CC0. It's my go-to for any side projects I work on, for all kinds of reasons, but mostly just because I feel it minimizes economic deadweight loss by incurring zero additional transaction costs.
Essentially licensing your software like this behaves like ASL unless you: modify + distribute (either binaries or by creating a service). Then you owe the changeset back, but it does not have a viral clause like the AGPL.
This solves a large part of the greedy AWS problem (Amazon copying entire open source projects and contributing nothing back), but also strikes a balance and allows API Compatibility.
I really like the EUPL on paper, and I've been told by Joinup's legal support that it should be a valid "change licence" for BUSL, in case I ever want that.
But I'm concerned about the compatibility clauses becoming a loophole for hostile forks. Then again, half the point of the EUPL is admitting that only a court can judge what is or isn't a derivative work (unlike the legal fiction in the GPL's viral clause), so I guess these uncertainties are part of the deal.
> Well, although SPDX counts 665 licences, there really just 3 main kinds:
> 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT)
> 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence)
> 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL)
MIT requires attribution, doesn't it? MIT (permissive) / MPL (non-viral copyleft) / AGPL (viral copyleft) seems like a better grouping to me; I rarely find myself reaching for any other licenses.
I do wish there were a shorter copyleft license though. I appreciate how transparent and readable MIT is.
The author must have meant something like Zero-Clause BSD, equivalent to public domain in the US. https://opensource.org/license/0bsd
I'm a big fan of CC0. It's my go-to for any side projects I work on, for all kinds of reasons, but mostly just because I feel it minimizes economic deadweight loss by incurring zero additional transaction costs.
My favorite is EUPL: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eup...
Essentially licensing your software like this behaves like ASL unless you: modify + distribute (either binaries or by creating a service). Then you owe the changeset back, but it does not have a viral clause like the AGPL.
This solves a large part of the greedy AWS problem (Amazon copying entire open source projects and contributing nothing back), but also strikes a balance and allows API Compatibility.
I really like the EUPL on paper, and I've been told by Joinup's legal support that it should be a valid "change licence" for BUSL, in case I ever want that.
But I'm concerned about the compatibility clauses becoming a loophole for hostile forks. Then again, half the point of the EUPL is admitting that only a court can judge what is or isn't a derivative work (unlike the legal fiction in the GPL's viral clause), so I guess these uncertainties are part of the deal.
Open license #666: the goatse license, which is absolutely not rubbish https://github.com/153/goatse-license
The moment that hits 666, it ticks right on over to 667.
People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long.
Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.
> no-one wants to release The Satanic License
You hang out with a different crowd than I do then. Perhaps the Satanic Temple should release an open source license to claim the #666 spot.
The classic Smoking Blood-Drenched Apparition With Fangs (SBDAWF) license is a close runner-up. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22sbdawf%22&ia=web
I'm getting flashbacks to Intel's 667MHz processors
Most of the licenses discussed in the article are demonstrably NOT open source licences at all.
Need one more.