💾 Archived View for paritybit.ca › arboretum › opinions › software-licensing.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 02:57:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Licenses which are simple, easy to understand for everyone, and don't place
undue burden on developers or users. My preferred licenses are: the Unlicense,
CC0, the ISC/MIT/BSD-2-clause Licenses, and CC-BY.
They utterly fail at their stated goal, instead reinforcing copyright as a tool
to get one's way and protect one's "intellectual property". This results in much
more hassle for developers with no true real-world gain compared to
anti-copyright or copycentre licenses. Read [A Critique of Free
Software](/a-critique-of-free-software) and [Free Software is an Abject
Failure](/blog/free-software-is-an-abject-failure) for more on this topic.
Licenses that attempt to control how one can use software without any real basis
in law or reality. They are, practically, just proprietary source-available
licenses that don't achieve anything meaningful.
Organizations that place themselves in the position of deciding what is and
isn't an "approved license". Not only are they run by people famous for
bikeshedding and doing next to nothing actually useful for the industry
(remember the FSF sending a hard drive to Microsoft telling them to put the
Windows 7 source code on it?), they can't even make consistent decisions about
the licenses they approve (e.g. the SSPL is just a stronger AGPL, but they both
call it "non-free").