Personally it's a mix of principle and practicality. On principle I'd like to be able to put code up on Github, tell people they can use it however they like and to credit me if it suits them, but otherwise I don't want the copyright or any other associated responsibilities on it. And practically I have no ability to enforce the terms of any licence once the code is in public anyway, so why should I spend time engaging in the licencing theatre

// Oops, I misunderstood the context of this discussion. Disregard this :p

"Slap a GPL3 in there" is pretty much the opposite of what the parent commenter wants, though. At 5500 words, GPL3 is a long read - I have a rough idea what it says, but can't say I've ever read and understood every word. Making my users do so might constitute cruel and unusual punishment :)

0BSD looks short and sweet, though. I don't need people using my libraries to include my LICENSE.txt, or give attribution, or tag any changes with their own copyright notice. Just take the code and do whatever you want, no strings attached.

> Making my users do so might constitute cruel and unusual punishment

The very opposite. GPLv3 is written by lawyers and for very good reasons. The more detailed a license is the more clear it is. That's why it clearly defines what constitutes distribution and so on.

This is also why things like rent contracts have long lists of what is allowed and expected and what is not, and when and why and so on: it creates clarity.

Clarity means less debating in court.

If you want legal trouble, sign a very short contract.

> If you want legal trouble, sign a very short contract.

If the length of contract is what is protecting you, you're already in court. If it's a jury trial, all bets are off no matter what the law or contract says.

> If the length of contract is what is protecting you, you're already in court.

Not at all! A strong, detailed, clearly written contract reduces the amount of "wiggle room" for litigation.

The other party is much more likely *not* to sue you in the first place if they know they would be fighting an uphill battle against a strong contract.

That's why GPLv3 has anti-patent-troll clauses for example.

What?

The problem with most licenses is that they require that the license be distributed with the content that is licensed. I don't want to force people to do anything. I want it to be as if copyright doesn't exist.

By default copyright exists so by doing nothing you are copyrighting your work and preventing people who want to be in the legal clear from being able to use it (OSS games for example).

The best you can do is watermark your art with CC0 and/or include the license or a link to it in the file metadata.

But pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work.

I'm not pretending copyright doesn't exist, but I want other people to be able to interact with my work as if copyright and other forms of IP didn't exist.

There doesn't seem to be a perfect way to achieve this. The problem with CC0 (and I believe the reason OSI doesn't approve of it) is that it says:

> No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.

Whereas many licenses can be interpreted as an implied patent license[0]. I guess adding an additional declaration saying something like this could fix that:

> All trademark and patent rights associated with this work are permanently waived.

But I have no idea if that would work and it's frustrating that there is no simple way of opting out of intellectual 'property' ownership all together.

The closest, at least when it comes to software may be 0BSD considering large corporations like Google are willing to accept it.

[0]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653

So what do you do if a company contacts you for a commercial license? If the rights are permanently waived, how do you offer a different license?

The right copyright gives is a monopoly on distribution and on granting of conditional permission to distribute. The right is the monopoly itself, not the ability to do it. If you waive that right, you're saying that anyone is allowed to distribute and to grant permission to distribute. An author of a work in the public domain can license their work to someone under any license -- as can anyone else.

> pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work

And severely limits the freedom of end users!

GPLv3 protects around tivoization and proprietarization. Other licenses do not.

The net effect is that end users are unable to benefit from the openness.

Freedom to me is whatever exists in the absence of coercion. GPL licenses depends on coercion, so they cannot produce freedom as I see it.

To illustrate this, imagine an alternative universe where violence is impossible. In this universe IP as we know it including copyleft licenses couldn't exist as violence or credible threats of violence by a state (or similar entity) is required for enforcement. I want to get as close to this hypothetical universe as possible by avoiding everything that depends on violence and coercion as far as possible.

The only thing that the GPL family prevents is coercion, effectively reaching a local minima of coercion-by-others as a function of coercion-by-vendor.

Granting the freedom to coerce doesn't reduce coercion.

Not distributing source code is not coercion. GPL forces people to do work in exchange for a promise that they will not be subject to volience, that's coercion.

You're right that in a universe where everyone grants their end users necessary freedoms and don't use coercion to limit those rights, GPL would be completely unnecessary. Until that happens, coercing people to stop further coercion is the best thing we have.

I'm taking about a universe where violence is impossible. Not a universe where people are compelled to distribute source code whenever they have distributed a binary file.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of forcing people to do what I want and that's the clear purpose of GPL.

Somebody not doing what I want is not coercing me. I'm free to use or not use a binary distributed without it's source code, or I can try to reverse engineer it. Forcing them to do the additional work of sending me the source code would be coercing them, it would be impossible in my hypothetical alternative universe, and it would be wrong in this universe.

GPL *protects* against tivoization, proprietarization and patent trolling. It partially protects from SaaS.

These are all things that currently threaten the freedom of users and developers.

Ramblings about impossible alternative universes adds very little.

Your definition of freedom seem to be other people doing what you want them to do. That's not how I see freedom. Someone offering software as a service is not a threat to anyone's freedom. Preventing them from doing so by the threat of state violence makes both the business and it's potential customers less free.

Then you need to lobby your government for copyright not to exist.

I would if I could, but I don't have any power over any government.

I've used CC0 when I want to free downstream users to reuse the code in any context and under any license of their choosing, free from the burden of attribution or preservation of my copyright notice. It's great for code samples.

I don't. I don't want any license at all, I just want people to be able to use what I have written in a natural and completely bullshit-free legally unencumbered manner. Unfortunately, copyright law has forced me to declare this outright in what is, apparently, convoluted and tedious legalese.

0BSD. And then never sue anyone over it.

Because software licenses are a mess Linux and Samba implement the same protocol UT can't share code as one is under GPLv3 and one is under GPLv2. In the past GPLv2 was the universal receptor license for open source licenses (is that license GPLv2 compatible and my code is then I can release the result as GPLv2). GPLv3 changed that. Now there is only the universal donor. There is turns The public domain. However that one has been utterly FUDed by boomer lawyers being compared to littering by the highway. So now we need a rubber stampable (so people can use it until copyright gets killed ... Uhhm ... fixed) public domain equivalent license. OBSD does that without "any uncertainty" and it being a "proper license".

> End result is the same without the uncertainty.

You fell for the boomer FUD.

It's not "boomer FUD". Germany and Japan currently won't listen to you if you say your work is public domain. They only respect copyright expiration and licensing agreements. So if you say your code is PD, and someone in those countries use it, you can still sue them for copyright infringement and possibly win. If you retain copyright and use literally any license then the people using your code have a much stronger defense against you.

You might not care about Germany or Japan, but there's plenty of FOSS developers there that need to have working licenses. Is it possible that those jurisdictions might change their mind? Yes, but it's also unlikely. Copyright harmonization has been entirely focused on the needs of the proprietary world[0]. Thus, if your goal is to effectively disclaim copyright, you need to choose legal actions that fit within the mold that the proprietary world has forced upon us. If the proprietary world does not care about artists being allowed to dedicate works to the public domain, then you won't be able to do so internationally.

[0] e.g.

- Very long copyright terms - Unwaivable moral rights for (copyright-wielding) artists - Strong domestic enforcement for international copyright holders - Upper bounds on exceptions to copyright - Forcing everyone to adopt DMCA 1201 - Making copyright exempt from normal democratic process

Meaning re-invent the CC0 license and apply it to your work? I don't understand what you're advocating for.