This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz
by Christian Neukirchen.
Original Post: Why I use the MIT license
Feed Title: chris blogs: Ruby stuff
Feed URL: http://chneukirchen.org/blog/category/ruby.atom
Feed Description: a weblog by christian neukirchen - Ruby stuff
The internet probably is the closest thing to working anarchy mankind
ever had. I don’t want to, and I don’t see any point in restricting
other peoples’ freedom. Since 2004, I therefore license all my new
code under the terms of the MIT license or comparable licenses
(notably the Ruby license).
I do this for pragmatic reasons. I’d prefer to do it like
Bernstein, but this is
unfortunately a lot more hassle for non-private users of my software.
Using MIT is also easier than creating my own licenses.
The MIT and the ISC license fit my idea of software licensing best.
I mainly use MIT because it’s more popular and well known.
I have evaluated putting some works into the public domain (or license
them as CC0), but I can’t do
this easily for various reasons: First, I live and code in Germany,
where you can’t place things into the public domain without already
being dead for a long time. Second, I do not want to give up all my
moral rights, because then the code can actually be used against
myself (mainly “any distortion, mutilation or other modification of,
or other derogatory action in relation to the said work”, I don’t care
about the rest). I do not know if this matters in real life, and I
hope it does it not, but I don’t want to risk it. (Still, I think CC0
is the most important recent addition to the license landscape.)
(In general, I’d even prefer if my code was regarded
authorless—which does not mean I don’t care about it. But neither I
don’t care at all what you do with the code, and I’ll not endorse it
nor want to be identified with it in other ways—especially if you
distribute modified copies! I’ve been considering anonymous or
pseudonymous releases for these reasons. Again, pragmatism strikes:
apart from murky and inconvenient ways to release and ensure archival,
it is problematic for others that depend on the legal system to use my
works.)
I consider it unfortunate that we spend so much energy on licensing
debates, clarification of terms and persecution of violation. Rather,
let’s code. As long as there is a single available copy of free code,
its freedom is kept and can be multiplied at no cost. For code that
is worth anything, it will.
I realize “bad guys” don’t cease to exist—whether they “steal”,
don’t share, lock up code, or have business models in mind you don’t
like. But it’s not my fault they are that way, and neither it is my
job to “teach them lessons”. Good deeds have to come from yourself,
and why should I not give anyone the possibility to do so.
Thus, more power to you! Now go forth and do whatever you think is
right.
Previous Topic
