Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    241 points solcloud | 24 comments | | HN request time: 1.833s | source | bottom
    1. josephcsible ◴[] No.41916141[source]
    Can you add a license file?
    replies(1): >>41916703 #
    2. solcloud ◴[] No.41916703[source]
    I guess I can, but I am not a lawyer and I don't really want to go on date with Gaben and his lawyers (date with Gabe, gooseman and Jess is ok for me), but if you have any suggestions please share
    replies(4): >>41916709 #>>41916908 #>>41917805 #>>41918333 #
    3. solcloud ◴[] No.41916709[source]
    source code is all written from scratch and it is free for anybody
    replies(3): >>41916909 #>>41917062 #>>41917184 #
    4. cAtte_ ◴[] No.41916908[source]
    even if you were infringing on Valve's copyrights (which you probably aren't, you're just using one of their trademarks), licensing your project or not wouldn't change that at all. but more importantly, by not including a license file in your repository, you are asking everyone to assume that your project is not licensed, therefore all rights are reserved, therefore it's not actually open-source (a comment on HN is sadly not enough): https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi....
    5. JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B ◴[] No.41916909{3}[source]
    That’s not a valid license. Without a file or statement in the repository, I guess it’s a proprietary piece of software that people cannot legally fork.
    replies(1): >>41920151 #
    6. sqeaky ◴[] No.41917062{3}[source]
    So this code is free!?

    So I can take it and reuse it exactly as is and claim it's my own and sell it on Steam for $60 a pop?

    So I can take it and use your name that is surely somewhere in the code and fill it with swastikas and hate speech and say that this represents your views?

    Or more reasonably since I don't see a license this is copy written reserving All Rights and anything said here is just a trap you're just waiting for me to do something cool with it then hit me with a lawsuit and take my money, right?

    But more seriously head over to the open source initiative read up on a couple of licenses and pick one. Almost any license will prevent people from using your name but let other people use the code if that's a thing you want.

    If you just want to protect your name and let people use the code for whatever even making money consider an MIT or BSD Style license.

    If you want (to protect your name and for) other people to be able to use the code but need to share their changes consider a GPL style license. This will complicate other people making money but doesn't strictly prohibit it.

    If you don't want (the previous stuff and for) other people to be able to prevent people from selling it you might want to use something like a Creative Commons non-commercial license, I won't be perfect but there are flowcharts you can follow to figure out which license works for you.

    replies(2): >>41917341 #>>41919667 #
    7. kurisufag ◴[] No.41917184{3}[source]
    this may be what you're looking for

    http://www.wtfpl.net/about/

    replies(1): >>41917625 #
    8. airstrike ◴[] No.41917341{4}[source]
    > So I can take it and use your name that is surely somewhere in the code and fill it with swastikas and hate speech and say that this represents your views?

    That has nothing to do with the game being free. If you dedicate source code to public domain and someone slaps swastikas on it, it doesn't represent OP's views all of a sudden

    replies(1): >>41921862 #
    9. wyldfire ◴[] No.41917625{4}[source]
    Don't use that license, use something similar like MIT, BSD or Apache instead.
    replies(2): >>41917987 #>>41918264 #
    10. fragmede ◴[] No.41917805[source]
    Please do. This is your code so you get to decide exactly how free you want it to be, but without a license, it's "source available" which means that people can't do more than look at it and say "that's nice". If you want to let other people actually do something with it, then it needs a license. I can't decide for you which one to choose, but MIT is popular, let's other people take your code as long as they say where it came from. For web projects that you want to remain free, AGPL is a license that says you can use this code, but any changes you make to it also have to be free. It's a tricky topic that this comment is far too short to cover, but it's worth a hour or two of your time to consider as what you think of as okay to with your source won't align with what everyone else might consider to do with your source.
    11. kurisufag ◴[] No.41917987{5}[source]
    would you mind pointing out why?

    those are very dissimilar licenses in the sense that wtfpl is basically a cute way of putting something into the public domain, while MIT et. al. do actually have (albeit minor and reasonable) restrictions on the conduct of people using the code.

    replies(2): >>41918662 #>>41919459 #
    12. dokyun ◴[] No.41918264{5}[source]
    WTFPL is a fine license. It's even FSF approved.
    replies(1): >>41918502 #
    13. soufron ◴[] No.41918333[source]
    If you need some pro bono legal help for choosing your license and avoisine trouble, just contact me :)
    replies(1): >>41919476 #
    14. josephcsible ◴[] No.41918502{6}[source]
    The FSF certifies that it's a free software license that's compatible with the GPL, but they recommend against using it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#WTFPL
    15. poizan42 ◴[] No.41918662{6}[source]
    There is no disclaimer of liability and implied warranty. You may be on the hook for damages if someone uses your code under the WTFPL and there is a bug that causes them to lose money.
    16. leni536 ◴[] No.41919459{6}[source]
    You can use zero-clause BSD[1] or MIT no-attribution[2].

    [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd

    [2] https://opensource.org/license/mit-0

    17. keyle ◴[] No.41919476{3}[source]
    That is nice of you to offer, but your profile nor this message provide any way of contacting you.
    replies(1): >>41919952 #
    18. dankwizard ◴[] No.41919667{4}[source]
    You've never worked in open source and it shows
    19. debugnik ◴[] No.41919952{4}[source]
    True, but googling soufron brings up a popular lawyer with that last name, whose social media and website use the same handle, and even has a wikipedia page. So I'm assuming he knows he's easy to find.
    replies(1): >>41921060 #
    20. droideqa ◴[] No.41920151{4}[source]
    It is public domain if there is no license.
    replies(1): >>41920229 #
    21. recursive ◴[] No.41920229{5}[source]
    That is not true.
    replies(1): >>41920383 #
    22. droideqa ◴[] No.41920383{6}[source]
    I checked; you are right.
    23. ◴[] No.41921060{5}[source]
    24. sqeaky ◴[] No.41921862{5}[source]
    It was hyperbole, exaggeration for inflated effect, unlikely but within the realm of technically poossible.

    More likely people just won't use it without a license.