Talk:C Library: Difference between revisions

Line 31:

=Is Combuster Being Overly Pedantic Again=

The whole point of MIT and BSD licenses is that some MIT and Berkeley lawyers worked to create copyright licenses that were as close as humanly legally possible to "public domain" without actually using the words "public domain". You can use, modify, and sell the software to your heart's content, with the only restriction being to maintain the license. I say this is "basically public domain". Combuster says no, this does not meet the precise definition of public domain. Does anyone else wish to comment? [[User:Bewing|Bewing]] 20:48, 11 September 2012 (CDT)

:Then I hope you haven't stubbornly violating license agreements by omitting BSDs demand for '''attribution''', even though in commercial contexts it's sadly standard practice. Yes BSD-style licenses are useful for many things, but contrary to public domain and the later CC0, WTFPL and such you are required to do legal bookkeeping, and from every snippet you grab from the web follows the consequence of needing an extra half a page in your LICENSES document.

:Also, the direct consequence of your assumption is that BSD and MIT with all its paid lawyers failed epically at writing the appropriate license texts because the CC0 does things much better than that. Hence, I can't accept the factual accuracy of your statement. - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 07:58, 12 September 2012 (CDT)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 =Is Combuster Being Overly Pedantic Again=
 The whole point of MIT and BSD licenses is that some MIT and Berkeley lawyers worked to create copyright licenses that were as close as humanly legally possible to "public domain" without actually using the words "public domain". You can use, modify, and sell the software to your heart's content, with the only restriction being to maintain the license. I say this is "basically public domain". Combuster says no, this does not meet the precise definition of public domain. Does anyone else wish to comment? [[User:Bewing|Bewing]] 20:48, 11 September 2012 (CDT)
+:Then I hope you haven't stubbornly violating license agreements by omitting BSDs demand for '''attribution''', even though in commercial contexts it's sadly standard practice. Yes BSD-style licenses are useful for many things, but contrary to public domain and the later CC0, WTFPL and such you are required to do legal bookkeeping, and from every snippet you grab from the web follows the consequence of needing an extra half a page in your LICENSES document.
+:Also, the direct consequence of your assumption is that BSD and MIT with all its paid lawyers failed epically at writing the appropriate license texts because the CC0 does things much better than that. Hence, I can't accept the factual accuracy of your statement. - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 07:58, 12 September 2012 (CDT)

Talk:C Library: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search