1. 16
  1.  

  2. 5

    Constructively, the previously existing https://choosealicense.com/ is the model I like, due to the plain English educational approach.

    Upon trying http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/licences/ I’m immediately confused / drawn on the question of definition of “copyleft”.

    It’s nice to see an alternative to GitHub’s offering of course, so I look forward to seeing an evolution of this. :-)

    1. 2

      Thanks for the feedback. It is valuable to see where exactly people struggle/are confused. I tried to clarify that part.

      The actual point is answer the statement “If somebody modifies my code, they must use the same licence.” with yes, no, or not-allowed. The words permissive and copyleft are only there for education.

    2. 2

      Looks cool! Some things @qznc may consider adding are ISC, CC0, and public domain. Each is fairly common and people have reasons to use them over similar licenses that are in the Wizard.

      I do sort of think that a shitty MS-paint 4chan-style flowchat would be a better medium for presenting this info, from a purely practical standpoint.

      1. 1

        I switched MIT to ISC because OpenBSD does as well.

        I do not want to recommend public domain because that does not work well internationally. I’m not sure about CC0.

        1. 1

          Why not allow the reader to decide? That is the point of the Wizard after all isn’t it?

          • People may prefer MIT over ISC because it is more widely used or because it is explicit about the documentation being part of the software.
          • People may prefer ISC because the text is shorter and less awkward.
          • People may prefer public domain because it is shorter than any real license and can be added as a line at the bottom of a README. It’s also a common language phrase, unlike CC0.
          • CC0 is basically public domain but with legalese to satisfy countries that don’t recognize public domain.
      2. 1

        Where can I learn more about the distinction between the options in the patent question? Toggling that seems to split me between Apache 2 and BSD 3-Clause. I’d like to understand the implication of choosing one of those over the other better.

        1. 1

          IANAL, but Apache 2 provides patent indemnification for users, e.g., “If you use our library, we also grant you any patent rights you will need for actually using it”.

          More can be found here.

          1. 1

            I’m indecisive about the distinction. The patent protection is probably a good idea for the Open Source ecosystem (probably not if you open source company code). On the other hand, the Apache licence is much more text than any BSD.

            Another possibility is that some contributor injects patented code into a project and then extorts all users.

        2. 1

          … horrifying? Sorry, this is super rough.

          1. 1

            The intended audience is people who need to choose a licence and have no idea what the relevant choices are.

            There might be additional specific requirements, which make the choice harder or easier. For example, if you want to submit your code to the D standard library, you must use the Boost licence. For the wizard, I do not care for such specific constraints.

            The goal is not to provide an overview over all licences.

            Care to elaborate what horrifies you the most?

            1. 1

              Yeah it says it’s a wizard but I’m not seeing any way to answer the questions and return a suggestion. Maybe it doesn’t work on mobile Safari? Looks more like a short FAQ.

              1. 1

                You have to press the line you find appropriate in the grey box… It’s not very obvious and I only found out because I accidentally clicked when I tried to scroll on my phone.

                1. 1

                  I’m the author.

                  Good point. I should change the style so they look like buttons instead of bullet points.

                  Edit: Done. Should work on mobile now.

              2. 1

                This is just about a program, not a library

                This is about media, not code

                I wasn’t really sure what these options meant. I clicked through both just to see what would pop-out, and frankly, I’m still not sure. :(

                1. 2

                  A copyleft licence like the GPL is “viral”: If someone integrates (linking, pasting, etc) the code into other code, the other code becomes GPL licenced as well. This viral effect must be considered if you write a library.

                  If you want copyleft without the virality, I recommend MPL.

                  This question is irrelevant if you pick a licence for a program, because virality does not apply for running a program. Likewise if you pick a licence for images, videos, fonts, media.

                  1. 1

                    That helps a lot. Thanks!

                    1. 1

                      This question is irrelevant if you pick a licence for a program, because virality does not apply for running a program.

                      Well….the AGPL kinda looks like it might have that property.