Comment by codazoda
2 years ago
No license typically means copyright with all rights reserved in the U.S.
Perhaps you want to release this into the public domain (see SQLite)?
2 years ago
No license typically means copyright with all rights reserved in the U.S.
Perhaps you want to release this into the public domain (see SQLite)?
I’d say the license is:
“ Use it at your own risk, and don't blame me if anything bad happens. Oh, and if you extend it, make sure there isn't any Objective-C in it!”
I’d classify it as Open Source.
It's open source but it is still under copyright. There are notices in the source file:
https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/View.c#L5...
I would definitely ask permission and encourage the author to change the license before using this code.
Since API calls are purely functional and not covered by copyright you can mimic the behavior here but you'll need to rewrite everything from scratch, notably the most expressive parts, which are:
https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType...
https://github.com/CodaFi/C-Macs/blob/master/CMacs/CMacsType...
The organization and structure of this code is arbitrary and within the author's creative expression.
In most jurisdictions almost everything is under copyright, until it expires. (Which is approximately right before the heat death of the universe, after Disney get their way. Or 70 years after the authors death, or something like that.)
2 replies →
Copyleft licenses depend on copyright. I think it was in an FSF FAQ somewhere. GPL is as copyright maximalist as it gets.
I’d call it source available not open source. It doesn’t meet the open source definition.
I always see the strangest fluctuations in upvotes and downvotes whenever I state the laws and doctrines of copyright.
FWIW, I do court ordered code inspections to assess alleged copyright infringement for a living.
It’s definitely not Open Source with that Objective-C restriction. Though it does fit the attitude of the project.
Oh no that won't fly at all. People around here really like "proper" licenses. And they'll tell you about it.
I'm not a lawyer but one would definitely let you know that at least in the US, software without a license is more dangerous than software with even a very restrictive one. Someone can come along and determine the license at any time. So there is good reason to point it out unless you crave legal jeopardy.
1 reply →
I don't like the (perhaps actually a) license, because it set's limits on what the user can do with the source code. (Not allowing Objective C in it.)
1 reply →
I do love the vibe of that license
If it weren't for it claiming to not be a license in the sentence before, it would be pretty good. Reminds me of the WTFPL license. :)
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WTFPL