9

Which type of license doesn't require attribution? Is there a project on GitHub?

3

3 Answers 3

16

Nearly all Open Source licenses require attributions. Counter-examples include:

2
  • 3
    > Unlicense [...] Not a good license: Could you elaborate on that?
    – leo848
    Mar 6, 2023 at 14:47
  • 3
    @leo848 I discuss the differences between these licenses in another answer. In brief, the Unlicense has inconsistent/contradictory terms. It was written by a programmer, not by an expert copyright lawyer. It attempts to be a public domain dedication with a permissive fallback license, but it's unclear whether this goal is achieved in all jurisdictions. Everyone understands what it's trying to do, though. And since it has found widespread use (despite its severe problems), it was later OSI-approved as an Open Source license.
    – amon
    Mar 6, 2023 at 16:43
12

The WTFPL probably deserves a mention. Here's the entire text of the license:

        DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE 
                    Version 2, December 2004 

 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <[email protected]> 

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified 
 copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long 
 as the name is changed. 

            DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE 
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 

  0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
4
  • 2
    I'm no prolific open source dev, but I default to this license because it means exactly what I intend. I don't want any communication lost in what feels to me as very unnecessary legalese for functionally similar licenses.
    – aaaaaa
    Mar 7, 2023 at 0:53
  • 2
    @aaaaaa Please consider using the 0BSD license instead, or dual-licensing with a more "serious" license. While the WTFPL probably works fine, it was created as a parody of the GPL and deliberate includes unnecessary boilerplate. Also, licenses are for users, not for authors, and some users greatly prefer OSI-approved Open Source licenses.
    – amon
    Mar 7, 2023 at 7:59
  • Yeah, I'm in amon's boat here. I remember when PHP had to remove json.org code for similar reasons. This is slightly less vague than that "license", but it still has enough ambiguity that if push ever came to shove legally, there's some potential wiggle room. I wouldn't want to litigate the meaning of this license in court.
    – Machavity
    Mar 7, 2023 at 13:48
  • understandable - I probably would feel obligated to use an OSI approved license if I authored anything used in a broad capacity.
    – aaaaaa
    Mar 7, 2023 at 17:09
8

Here are more licenses which don't require attribution:

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.