These licences, if they have a point, fail big time on making them. There is a copyright law out there, and source code, being copyrighted product, needs to be licenced appropriately if you want to share it. If you want the copyright law changed or abandoned, which I personally do, well, inform people about it and do some activism maybe. These ridiculous "licences" do not inform people of anything, and also they obscure the reusability of the product.
Re:“Good Luck with That” Public License
by evilDagmar on Wednesday June 06, 2018 @09:26PM
(#17252541)
In this case the point of the licence is that the original author knows they have done something terrible and/or inadvisable (probably out of desperation), but still... The code worked once and it might be useful to someone else in a bind, but the author absolutely does not want anything to do with whatever new problem it was leveraged against, or the fallout if this time it doesn't work.
A licence is not provided with free software in order to convince you that you should use that person's code. It's provided because some people are just shirty enough to steal other people's work, claim it for themselves, and then eventually sue the original author for copyright infringement.
Programming is mathematics. You stop doing things like trying to 'license' 2+2 on x86, and we'll stop making goofy licenses to mess with you and give your lawyer a heart attack.
We all know if you see something you really like but don't like the licensing of, you'll just rewrite it differently, and slap All Rights Reserved on it anyway. Thus is the joy of the Turing Machine. What you do can be redone in an infinitude of different ways. You insisting on licensing schemes just holds back code from being utilized, and builds legal structures through which software writers and users can be abused.
I've recently thought of creating a TTCACOI (Take This Code And Choke On It) license as of late.
I mean, clearly if forced binding arbitration can force you to relinquish civil rights through Contract law, one should be able to compel auto-esophegeal blockage through licensing terms right?