Which type of license doesn't require attribution? Is there a project on GitHub?
-
3Does this answer your question? Recommended license for small script without an attribution clause?– AlejandroMar 6 at 12:22
-
1Besides, I don't know how the question is related with GitHub.– AlejandroMar 6 at 12:28
-
3@Alejandro There is an pervasive myth that "software hosted on Github" and "open source" are the same thing. I know that's wrong, you know that's wrong but that doesn't mean everybody does.– Philip KendallMar 6 at 13:08
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
Nearly all Open Source licenses require attributions. Counter-examples include:
- 0BSD, a license that imposes no conditions. Example: Toybox, a minimal Linux userland.
- CC0, though it is technically not a license and has problems when applied to software. Frequently seen for cryptographic reference implementations, though. Example: the blake3 hash function.
- Unlicense, which is an amateur version of the CC0 idea. Not a good license, but comparatively popular.
- Boost license, when compiled into another software. Example: the Boost project.
-
3
-
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.– amonMar 6 at 16:43
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.
-
2I'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.– aaaaaaMar 7 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.– amonMar 7 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. Mar 7 at 13:48
-
understandable - I probably would feel obligated to use an OSI approved license if I authored anything used in a broad capacity.– aaaaaaMar 7 at 17:09
Here are more licenses which don't require attribution:
- 1-clause BSD License, for software in binary form. An example project using this license is uthash.
- MIT No Attribution License
- Apache License 2.0, when compiled into another software, only if used together with either the LLVM Exception (LLVM is an example project) or Swift Exception (Swift is an example project).
