drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2023-11-25 02:49:12 +01:00
parent 6766c52da6
commit 14fc271097
9 changed files with 158 additions and 10 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
license.md
View file

@ -1,10 +1,15 @@
# License
License is a legal text by which we share some of our exclusive rights (e.g. [copyright](copyright.md)) over [intellectual](intellectual_property.md) works with others. For the purpose of this Wiki a license is what enables us to legally implement [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md) (as well as [free culture](free_culture.md)): we attach a license to our program that says that we grant to everyone the basic freedom rights to our software with optional conditions (which must not be in conflict with free software definition, e.g. we may require [attribution](attribution.md) or [copyleft](copyleft.md), but we may NOT require e.g. non-commercial use only). We call these licenses *free licenses* ([open source](open_source.md) licenses work the same way). Of course, there also exist [non-free](proprietary.md) licenses called [EULAs](eula.md), but we stay away from these.
License is a legal text by which we grant some of our exclusive rights (e.g. [copyright](copyright.md) or [patents](patent.md)) over [intellectual](intellectual_property.md) works to others. To [us](lrs.md) a license is what enables us to legally implement [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md) (as well as [free culture](free_culture.md)): we attach a license to our program (or other work) which says that we grant to everyone the basic freedom rights to our software/work with optional conditions (which must not be in conflict with free software definition, e.g. we may require [attribution](attribution.md) or [copyleft](copyleft.md), but we may NOT require e.g. [non-commercial](nc.md) use only). Licenses used to enable free software are called *free licenses* ([open source](open_source.md) licenses work the same way). Of course, there also exist [non-free](proprietary.md) licenses called [EULAs](eula.md), but we stay away from these -- from now on we will implicitly talk about free licenses only. Licenses are similar to [waivers](waiver.md).
TODO: classification (permissive vs copyleft etc.)
**You shall always use a free license for your software.**
At [LRS](lrs.md) we highly prefer [public domain](public_domain.md) [waivers](waiver.md) instead of licenses, i.e. we release our works without any conditions/restrictions whatsoever (e.g. we don't require credit, [copyleft](copyleft.md) and similar conditions, even if by free software rules we could). This is because we oppose the very idea of being able to own information and ideas, which any license is inherently based on. Besides that, licenses are not as legally [suckless](suckless.md) as public domain and they come with their own issues, for example a license, even if free, may require that you promote some political ideology you disagree with (see e.g. the principle of [+NIGGER](plusnigger.md)).
Free licenses are mainly divided into:
- **[copyleft](copyleft.md)**: Licenses that require that further modifications of the work will still remain free, i.e. "forcing freedom". Example of such licenses are [GPL](gpl.md) and [CC BY-SA](cc_by_sa.md). Copyleft licenses are a bit more associated with free software (as opposed to open source) as the main free software organization -- [GNU](gnu.md) -- advocates them because they disallow corporations to take free programs and make them into proprietary ones.
- **[permissive](permissive.md)**: Licenses that basically allow to "do anything you want" (though usually still requiring e.g. credit to the original author), even making modified non-free versions of the work. Most famous example is the [MIT](mit.md) license. Though not strictly so, permissive licenses are a bit more associated with open source than free software as they are friendlier to business (one can "unfree" new versions of a software at any time if it's desirable for money making; of course old versions of the program will still remain free), however some prefer them for other reasons, e.g. greater legal simplicity and not wanting to force a "correct" use of one's work.
At [LRS](lrs.md) we highly prefer [public domain](public_domain.md) [waivers](waiver.md) such as [CC0](cc0.md) instead of licenses, i.e. we release our works without any conditions/restrictions whatsoever (e.g. we don't require credit, [copyleft](copyleft.md) and similar conditions, even if by free software rules we could). This is because we oppose the very idea of being able to own information and ideas, which any license is inherently based on. Besides that, licenses are not as legally [suckless](suckless.md) as public domain and they come with their own issues, for example a license, even if free, may require that you promote some political ideology you disagree with (see e.g. the principle of [+NIGGER](plusnigger.md)).
Some most notable free licenses for software include (FSF: FSF approved, OSI: OSI approved, LRS: approved by us, short: is the license short?):