commit 8f4bad2aa717d2f6da393d44f4176a8050953076
parent 04f2f56788fff08a1d3fe85a642a306be7ec5ebe
Author: Chris Bracken <chris@bracken.jp>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:30:26 -0700
Drop thoughts on licences post
I was never much of a fan of this post and not sure it adds much.
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/post/2020-05-22-thoughts-on-licences.md b/content/post/2020-05-22-thoughts-on-licences.md
@@ -1,97 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = "Thoughts on Licences"
-date = "2020-05-22T14:55:23-07:00"
-slug = "thoughts-on-licences"
-tags = ["Meta", "Software"]
-+++
-
-Software licences are probably the single most boring aspect of software
-development, but it's important to carefully consider the terms under which the
-stuff I hack on is shared to ensure they're consistent with my values. Despite
-my general dislike for all things legalistic, the most unambiguous way to state
-those terms is through a licence. So a couple days ago, I tossed LICENSE files
-into any of my public [repos](/code) that didn't already have one.
-
-So how did I settle on which licences to apply? Jump on into the DeLorean and
-let's set the dial back to the late 1980s.
-
-It's 1986 and I've got a 1200 baud modem wired up to a beat-up 286 with a steel
-case that would easily allow it to double as a boat anchor if needed. Armed
-with a dot-matrix printout of local BBSes with names like Camelot, Tommy's
-Holiday Camp, and Forbidden Night Castle, I fire up PC-Talk. A series of
-[high-pitched squeals and tones][modem_handshake] fill the air, then text
-flashes across the screen. I'm online.
-
-BBSes were a treasure trove of information, filled to the brim with zip archives
-full of downloadable programs, source code, patches for existing programs, and
-all manner of text files with names like [Smashing The Stack For Fun And
-Profit][smash_stack]. You could find everything from how to crack copy-protected
-software, to details on phone phreaking, to how to make nitroglycerine from
-commonly-available household items. It was through BBSes that I first downloaded
-an I'm sure _totally legitimate_ copy of Borland Turbo C++ and took my first
-baby steps writing _real_ programs. No more BASIC for me.
-
-This culture of open sharing in the online world has had a huge impact on me.
-From those early experiences with BBSes to my first forays onto the Internet a
-few years later, seeing people openly sharing code and patches and helping each
-other solve problems over Usenet seemed almost revolutionary to me at the time.
-In some ways, it still does. I feel lucky to have been a part of it from such an
-early age.
-
-The end result is that I try to publicly share all the work I do. So when it
-came time to chuck licences on stuff, I sat down to work out a personals ad for
-my ideal licence. Aside from enjoying long walks on the beach, it should:
-
- 1. Allow free use, modification, and distribution both of the original
- work and any derived works.
- 2. Require that people distributing the work or any derived work to
- give appropriate credit.
- 3. Disallow suggesting that I in any way endorse any derived products
- or whoever produces them.
- 4. Gently encourage a culture of open exchange and sharing of
- information and techniques.
- 5. Be short, clear, and easy to understand.
-
-On the software side, there were lots of options, but the best matches in my
-mind are the [MIT][mit_licence] or [BSD][bsd_licence] licences. The 3-clause
-'new' BSD licence has an advantage in that it required written permission from
-the author to use their name in any endorsement/promotion of a derived work.
-That happens to be what we already use for [work][flutter].
-
-On the content side, I've always posted my web site's content under a [Creative
-Commons Attribution-ShareAlike][cc_by_sa] licence. But I don't believe that's
-actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I've elected to
-use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
-acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive [Creative
-Commons Attribution][cc_by] licence.
-
-This feels to me a bit like the difference between [BSD][bsd_licence] and
-[GPL][gpl_licence] terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
-GPL-licensed. This "viral" nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather
-than gently promoting a culture of sharing by example, it legally _requires_
-sharing under the same terms whether or not you want to.
-
-Personally, I'd like for people to do the right thing and share their work for
-everyone's benefit not because they _have_ to, but because they _want_ to. If
-they don't want to, why should my reaction be to disallow their use of my work?
-Isn't that contrary to my stated goals of sharing as much and as broadly as
-possible?
-
-While I _hope_ that more people share more of their work, it doesn't bother me
-if you don't. If anything I've written is somehow useful to you, I'm glad. Use
-your knowledge to help others and make the world a better place, and if you can
-find time to do so, share a bit with the rest of us.
-
-Got thoughts and opinions on licences? Fire an email my way at
-[chris@bracken.jp][email].
-
-[modem_handshake]: https://www.windytan.com/2012/11/the-sound-of-dialup-pictured.html
-[smash_stack]: https://insecure.org/stf/smashstack.html
-[flutter]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter
-[mit_licence]: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
-[bsd_licence]: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
-[gpl_licence]: https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0
-[cc_by_sa]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
-[cc_by]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-[email]: mailto:chris@bracken.jp
