Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@tbodt Right, which makes it a non-rights-respecting, or "non-free", license.
"Terms of use" may be applied rightfully to something like a lawn mower, or chair, or computer, which you own and may rightfully control. đđ
When you see the same phrase applied to software, it's actually not a claim of control over the software, but is a claim of control over you and your property, by people who own neither. đâšī¸
The rant starts here
My first rant...! Saw this on twitter. So, true.
**I move away from the mic to prepare for the --'s
Lol @ GPL... No license which proposes a restriction on the user's actions can be considered "free as in freedom".
The MIT license comes close, but mandates the inclusion of a copy of the license.
The WTFPL, while designed to use humor to bring attention to this very problem, still fails in its goal by incorrectly stating that "changing [the license] is allowed as long as the name is changed". Wrong: it's allowed because anybody is allowed to type what they want into a text document.
The only good one I've found is the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org). Unlike the others, it's not a prescription for what you may do with your own property, under threat of force; it's simply a friendly notice that you actually respect the rights of the user and would never imagine legally violating them.
rant
rms isn't radical enough
fight me irl
hi
first rant