Post B2VTGGHB8Aia22dca8 by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
(DIR) More posts by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
(DIR) Post #B2RXG495qzxjavB99s by nulflox@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-19T05:39:51.229241Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you're going to release an open-source project knowing that you won't take any actions when someone steals it, why do you even add a proper license, not "Do whatever you want" license?
(DIR) Post #B2RXG5Tgtu25j5p6u0 by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-19T10:04:09.872605Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nulflox > when someone steals itNo such thing as "digital theft". That out of the way. If you release source code under a license with strong copyleft such as GPLv3+, you can proxy license enforcement to third parties that might have the time and resources for enforcement, the FSF or the SFC recommend using GPL licenses precisely because it doesn't let enforcement up to one single copyright holder but many people or organizations, even users can enforce the license.If anything, being unable or unwilling to properly enforce the license is one more reason to pick GPLv3+ or similar as it makes enforcement to other people not just easier but possible.
(DIR) Post #B2RXG6pLsqxBuYxvIu by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-19T12:47:02.945631Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eliseo01 @nulflox For me, only AGPLv3-or-later will do.
(DIR) Post #B2TIZ8GJfA9erq6ukC by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-20T09:08:51.587756Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @nulflox AGPLv3+ is also my favorite.
(DIR) Post #B2TaI0emU7NVX1XSgy by nulflox@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-20T03:41:26.102931Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eliseo01 I don't think that answeres my question. If the developer is absolutely unwilling to take any actions, even through an another organization, why should they license their code? If they're not enforcing it, it's almost as if the ode is completely free for all purposes, including using it for a 100% proprietary software.
(DIR) Post #B2TaI1sdw43pKJ22wC by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-20T12:30:28.593637Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nulflox @eliseo01 >If the developer is absolutely unwilling to take any actions, even through an another organization, why should they license their codePartly answered already, but I'll answer it better.Since if the developer doesn't license their code, it's automatically proprietary software; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicenseEven in the case of not caring about enforcement, the author should still select a competently written license like the AGPLv3-or-later, making sure to license validly (at bare minimum, an unambiguous statement in the README that unless otherwise noted, all files in the project are licensed AGPLv3-or-later (if code from other projects under licenses were copied, the copyright headers should be retained in those files or added, or the copyright details and file listing detailed in the README), the name of the copyright holder and the copyright year(s) will do) and then forget about it.That will ensure the software is free for its users and also that the users have the ability to choose to enforce the license themselves.
(DIR) Post #B2TaQy9TAShIMvAJ4y by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-20T09:07:15.981974Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nulflox No, my explanation does answer your question. As I've explained in my first comment the developer doesn't need to take any action to guarantee enforcement, enforcement can be taken upon by anyone. In contrast not licensing the source code at all makes it absolutely proprietary, as in many countries a lack of copying terms often means that all rights are reserved.
(DIR) Post #B2TaQzZjsHIwmgSnfE by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-20T12:32:04.435897Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eliseo01 @nulflox It's in fact almost all countries, as almost all countries are part of the Berne convention or TRIPS Agreement (yes, it quite literally trips the whole country up).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention?useskin=monobookhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS?useskin=monobook
(DIR) Post #B2VTGEfZ6X2L3624Jc by nulflox@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-20T13:37:34.713976Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eliseo01 I said to add "do whatever you want" license, not "do not even add license". That would make it absolutely free.
(DIR) Post #B2VTGGHB8Aia22dca8 by eliseo01@fe.disroot.org
2026-01-20T14:28:34.833082Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nulflox Most of those licenses have no valid grounds in a civil court and they would be dismissed by most judges, even if you tried to enforce it. Essentially using a joke/shitpost license is equal to not licensing at all, but with extra steps. If you're not going to pick a proper license out of laziness, specially a copyleft, you might as well not publish the work at all, as it takes far more effort to release the code than to license it.> That would make it absolutely free.No, a lack of license makes the work all rights reserved due to things like the Berne Convention, as Suiseiseki explained earlier. If you want a project to be free you need to use a free license.