Your argument is exactly why the Unlicense is the perfect "license" here.Rein Halbersma wrote:I would not recommend a modified Boost license (or any other less familiar license) because it increases transaction costs for further development. The whole proliferation of slightly different licenses is a real pain.syzygy wrote:Ah, you started with the Unlicense:Looks fine to me.This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.
In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this software under copyright law.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Whether the "dedicate to public domain" clause is really non-revokable is not within the EU is not entirely clear, but it's the best you can do. EU copyright law does not really have a notion of "public domain" (except for works for which copyright has expired).
Another option: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
The point of the Unlicense is that it places no requirements whatsoever on what happens to the code next. The developer integrating the code into his own program can place it under any license that he wishes (which he can enforce to the extent that he has added his own copyrightable changes). No need to keep files separate or to keep lines of code separate (as Boost seems to require by necessity) or to in any way include extra license files.
As I wrote above about the Boost license:
syzygy wrote:Other people cannot simply take the code, modify it to their liking, and include it in their own program. They have to add the Boost license at least to the files that include (remnants of) your code and perhaps to the source code as a whole (the FSF would tell you that the program as a whole becomes a derivative work... the FSF may be wrong, but still).
