this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

32000 readers
1744 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
Whatever is Clever Public License (neon.nightbulb.net)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whatever is Clever Public License

Do whatever is clever. Do as you wish with this product.

Do whatever is clever shall be the whole of the law.

https://codeberg.org/sugarbug/whatever-is-clever-public-license

@[email protected]

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

For services I host I really like this EULA:

If the Provider of the Service (the "Provider") needs a place to crash and you have a sofa available, you should maybe give the Provider a break and let him sleep on your couch.

If you are caught in a dire situation wherein you only have enough time to save one person out of a group, and the Provider is a member of that group, you must save the Provider.

THE ACCESS IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BLAH BLAH BLAH ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW UPPER-CASE MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THE LICENSE IS ANGRY AND SHOUTING AT YOU.

Edit: original found here: https://github.com/pirate/security-growler

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Wiser alternative:

Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

nah, than ibm will annoy you, that they need a special license that allows them to be a dick while using your code.

just like they asked the JSLint guys to use JSLint for evil.

code that needs a license, but i really don't care what you do with it gets a wftpl.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Do this specifically so a judge has to rule if someone is being a dick or not. File amicus briefs on the definition of being a dick. Assemble a jury of peers to decide if the defendants are being a dick. Appeal to the supreme court to rule if the court erred in their judgement of the dickishness at question in this matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Uh, just don't mistake it for a license. It's funny and I like to put my stuff under WTFPL. But in recent times I feel it's appropriate to point out that you sometimes don't do your users a favor by being silly (if it's useful code.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Jokes aside, I wonder if any of the license mentioned in this thread is enforceable at all. Otherwise, might as well have CC0/PD

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

There are really only three licenses you should ever consider when making a new project in earnest: GPL if you want it to stay free forever, MIT if you don't care. Put an L in front of GPL if your project is a library. The end.

Any CC license including CC0 looks fine on paper, and they are court-tested, but anyone with a legal department won't risk dealing with one in the context of software, because CC licenses are for creative works and scientific research, not software. The main thing they're missing is a warranty release.

The Unlicense feels like an earnest attempt to fill the void that CC0 fails to fill, but it isn't a tested license. Everyone with a lawyer won't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they don't want to be the ones to find out how enforceable it really is. Besides, the only thing it gains you over the MIT is the ability to go uncredited. Which is nice feature; if people didn't want this we wouldn't have so many attempts to make a license that has it. But I feel like of all the features of a free software license one should be concerned about, explicit lack of credit is a pretty low-rung one.

Direct public domain insertion is good and effective, but is not global. Many places in the world have no formal legal system to do this (Germany is a famous example). PD dedication without a permissive fallback license makes your code completely unusable in these places. It's exactly why the CC0 and Unlicense exist in the first place.

Every single other license is either a meme license not worth the toilet paper it's written on, a weaker version of the GPL/MIT, or the GPL/MIT with extra steps.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The point of the CLEVER LICENSE is that there is no "enforcement." It grants ultimate freedom. The recipient of a product under this license can do whatever they wish with it. Enforcement is the polar opposite of the grant of freedom.

Read the language _carefully_. I wrote it with clever care.

"Do whatever is clever. Do as you wish with this product."

The phrase, "whatever is clever" means, "whatever you find suitable for your purpose."

The phrase, "do as you WISH" is a phrase of personal sovereignty, of one's own private law, giving unbridled lawful freedom.

"Do whatever is clever shall be the whole of the law."

The phrase, "SHALL be the whole of the law" specifies that the terms of the license are private law. Coupled with the prior phrase, the grantee's wish is the only restraint and only enforcement necessary.

When a monarch says, "I wish to receive porterhouse steak for dinner," he or she _will_ receive it. In law for a sovereign to "wish" is to _command_.

This meaning is similar to the phrase, "Your wish is my command."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Then I'd have to ask: what is the benefit of choosing it over CC0 if by law, there won't be any enforcement (not even attribution)? At least CC0 is well known.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Things like "enforcement" and "attribution" are restrictions, the opposite of freedom.

Why do you want a license that allows you to sue the users of your supposedly free software?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Creative Common license are well accepted. It requires attribution for derivative works. Due to its clear legal wording, you can enforce it.

Why I want to be able to sue? Exactly so that people won't take others' freedom, just like why the law exist in free world. Haven't you read about the many cases companies violating GPL got sued?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Clever License gives real freedom, individual freedom that is absent from the popular ideological licenses. Clever License doesn't need an "enforcement" mechanism because it is a real gift with no strings attached. A gift with strings attached is a snare.

No strings, no snare. "Do whatever is clever. Do as you wish with this product."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

There seems to be a more robust solution already. It's called Public Domain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well this is /c/programminghumor, I would assume mostly it's meant as a joke.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

@[email protected]

When you assume you make a donkey out of ewe. Don't be a sheep.