Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate
Photo

about: My Scripts and Snippets


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic
SKAN
  • Administrators
  • 9115 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
The following applies in general to all of my scripts/snippets that have been/will be posted in our forum:

<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia....emplate:PD-self<!-- m -->

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.


[*:33hvbrl3]It is your responsibility to make sure that the code was authored by me.
If you find the mention of other authors in my code, you will have to clarify the terms with the respective author.


[*:33hvbrl3]Under certain circumstances, I might be forced to publish my code under restrictive usage terms. For eg. one particular third party dll owner quotes:

If the developer choses the GNU GPL software license, he or she must fulfill the conditions of that license, which includes the obligation to place his or her whole software project under the GNU GPL or a compatible license.

In such a case, I will try my best to release the reusable parts well ahead of publishing the restrictive code.


[*:33hvbrl3]My humble request/suggestion:

People have different choices, and the above usage terms was my choice. When you see a license, respect it.
Even when you do not see one, if you are re-posting or publishing someone's code, make sure that you are not forgetting to link the source of the original code.
Thanks. :)

sumon
  • Moderators
  • 1317 posts
  • Last active: Dec 05 2016 10:14 PM
  • Joined: 18 May 2010
That is great SKAN :) I really like the clarificiation, decision, and also the fact that you respect other licenses.

nimda
  • Members
  • 4368 posts
  • Last active: Aug 09 2015 02:36 AM
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
I've been considering switching from WTFPL to Unlicense, simply because the latter contains a disclaimer.

I wonder how well these licenses on AHK scripts would hold up in court?

Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006

That is great SKAN Smile I really like the clarificiation, decision, and also the fact that you respect other licenses.

++1

I wonder how well these licenses on AHK scripts would hold up in court?

:D:D:D

Unlicensing (means putting code into public domain) does not work in all countries, in example in Germany public domain is not allowed. Most license terms are not made to work in all countries. There are really a few licenses which could have a voice on a court. Even the detailed GPL with serious applications / libraries is controversy.

Edit: It is much like my chosen license for ahk scripts: Simplefied BSD License. Main differences are the license cannot be altered and the author have to be mentioned.

No signature.


polyethene
  • Members
  • 5519 posts
  • Last active: May 17 2015 06:39 AM
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

Unlicensing (means putting code into public domain) does not work in all countries, in example in Germany public domain is not allowed. Most license terms are not made to work in all countries. There are really a few licenses which could have a voice on a court. Even the detailed GPL with serious applications / libraries is controversy.

Software licensing is a truly messy affair. Just as you said, I recently learned that public domain isn't as safe as one might expect especially after the news about the USA wanting to re-copyright public domain works which other nations presumably do already. Furthermore, copyright claims in places like the UK are often very aggressive since the law is written to favour the rights holder. In nearly every jurisdiction copyright law is much stronger than contractual law, so licensing terms come secondary to many other factors i.e. if your software was written by various contributors your license may be invalidated since the copyrights partially belong to other parties.

The EUPL is currently the most comprehensive open source software license. It is written for all EU member states by the European Commission for EU governments bodies. It would therefore be the safest option for developers if they were ever faced with or intend to use litigation. The only obvious downside is that a counterpart does not exist for US law, although I am fairly certain that it could still be fully enforced in US courts.

Small independent developers of open source software should ask themselves why they need a license in the first place. The cost of litigation is prohibitively expensive*, and in reality the license used makes little difference. If any medium to large company were going to use your code then their lawyers would most likely request your written permission anyway (which happened to me).

*Disclosure: I've used litigation for unauthorised use of my FOSS code which costed in excess of £150k in legal fees.

autohotkey.com/net Site Manager

 

Contact me by email (polyethene at autohotkey.net) or message tidbit


Lexikos
  • Administrators
  • 9844 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Unlicensing (means putting code into public domain) does not work in all countries,

I recently found the CC0, which seems to work around that.

A person using CC0 (called the “affirmer” in the legal code) dedicates a work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her copyright and neighboring and related rights in a work, to the fullest extent permitted by law. If the waiver isn’t effective for any reason, then CC0 acts as a license from the affirmer granting the public an unconditional, irrevocable, non exclusive, royalty free license to use the work for any purpose.

Source: CC0 FAQ - CC Wiki



Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006
@Lexikos
The CC0 is nothing else than a regular public domain unlicensing text (if I am not missing something). In Germany no one can left his copyright, and thats what public domain is. But everyone have the right to give anyone the permission to do anything with its code. He just can't enter public domain.

If this would be possible, then someone could adopt the code and change a bit here and there and claim he is the copyright holder.

But it would work, if a work is released under different licenses at the same time. For simple projects, this is no problem. I suggest, if you really like public domain work, release it under your unlicensing term and a copy with another well known and accepted open source license.

No signature.


nimda
  • Members
  • 4368 posts
  • Last active: Aug 09 2015 02:36 AM
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
@Tuncay:

(if I am not missing something)... In Germany no one can left his copyright, and thats what public domain is...

I believe that is the purpose of this clause:

If the waiver isn’t effective for any reason, then CC0 acts as a license from the affirmer granting the public an unconditional, irrevocable, non exclusive, royalty free license to use the work for any purpose.

So in Germany, where the waiver isn't effective, the CC0 is not a public-domain release but rather a royalty free license to use the work, even commercially.