Repository does not include license information

[akkartik]

Repository does not include license information

[akkartik]

I could never articulate why I disliked licenses until I read Martin Sústrik's post on the subject. Now I subscribe to his position unreservedly. I think IP law should not exist, certainly not in software. Consider the absence of a license in Mu an act of civil disobedience. I don't believe I have any right to dictate what people do with something after I show it to them. Thinking about licenses makes me dumber (legal codes are software too, just even crappier than Intercal) so I try to avoid doing it until I absolutely have to.

[akkartik]

Hello, by the way :)

[yarwelp]

Thank you for the article you linked, it is an interesting point of view. In my opinion using a permissive license is about granting rights you are comfortable about giving to others but I respect your choice to not license your software.

[akkartik]

Thanks for understanding :/ Just to be clear, you can do what you want as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider myself to have any rights to grant here.

[difranco]

See also:

https://github.com/aempirei/PMUT/blob/master/LICENSE

[difranco]

Interesting thoughts on practices relevant to this question:
http://www.loud1design.co.uk/on-patents-open-source-design-and-reciprocity/

"""
Reliance on copyright and copyleft in a classic Open Source project leaves collaboratively produced product innovations in the paradox highlighted by Michel Bauwens: that the more communal the license, the more commercial interests can exploit them without contributing to sustaining the innovation process that generated them.

If an open source project were conducted in secret, however, it would not be able to leverage the network benefits of the distributed development resource of the online community and would be forced back into the standard model of investment, patent acquisition and defence.

Conversely, if a development is carried out in a truly open model with disregard for how patents work, the open community could find its work enclosed at a later date by a proprietary patent as seen with the Makerbot community.

As a practising designer and engineer I am looking to launch a technology project and I want to embed the values of open source communities in its development. In particular, I want to ensure that the technology is not used for military applications.

I have come to the conclusion that a patent is needed to establish a “property” which I can then licence at a lower fee to non-profits in a way that reflects the goals and spirit of the CBRL. The core technology will then be a basis for an open source community platform around which developments and applications grow. Any licensing fees to larger profit-maximising companies will then feed directly back into sustaining this platform. The challenge then is to reach the stage of obtaining patents in key territories without requiring external investors who do not share these goals.
"""