7

**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.

Comments
  • 1
    Of course you can do what you want to the WTFPL in your text editor, but if you publish a different version with the same name the creator of the WTFPL can sue you.
  • 0
    @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. 👍😊

    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. 👎☹ī¸
Add Comment