Open source clarity about litl-license HOT 5 CLOSED

The term "use" in "This work may be used freely" is meant to encompass modification and redistribution, analogous to how the term "use" in "fair use" operates. Note that the license applies to the codebase itself, not just its consequent executing formulation (what would sometimes described as the "compiled binary").

from litl-license.

If you mean that, then could you make that clear somewhere? At least in the readme? Brevity is nice, but giving me a law suit instead does not appear to be a good trade.

from litl-license.

Yeah, there's kind of a whole article that's supposed to go along with this, kind of like the one that accompanies the Unlicense, that explains both that this license is meant to be used as a social signal for little, informal projects that it's okay to reuse them, whose implications are detailed via out-of-band context (as that is the function 99% of repos' FOSS software licenses serve in practice), and that you should use an actually-vetted-by-lawyers license if you actually anticipate any kind of liability.

I've been meaning to write something to gank the description from https://github.com/license-in-three-lines/license-in-three-lines.github.com/blob/master/index.html for a while, but writing what I basically just wrote, only longer-form, is one of those skills I don't have for some reason?

from litl-license.

Actually, the posts around the Unlicense sum up pretty much all the thinking I have toward what this license is supposed to be: I probably should have just invited @bendiken to weigh in on this when I first set it up.

from litl-license.

For that matter, I should also ping @alloy, since this whole thing is just me running with something that was his idea in the first place.

from litl-license.