jean-marc lienher | 9 Jun 15:52 2014
Picon

Found some public domain projects

Hi,

I've added some new projects on my public domain list:
http://cod5.org/archive/

http://cod5.org/archive/h/hutils.html
http://cod5.org/archive/m/minilisp.html
http://cod5.org/archive/p/pegc.html
http://cod5.org/archive/s/s11n.html
http://cod5.org/archive/s/salmon.html
http://cod5.org/archive/t/teratools.html
http://cod5.org/archive/t/tu_testbed.html

Tell me if you find some errors or if you have a project which should be 
added to my list.

   Jean-Marc Lienher

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dāvis Mosāns | 11 May 14:06 2014
Picon

Copyfree

Recently I discovered http://copyfree.org/ and they've similar goals and it can be useful when deciding which library to use. Like first I would look for Unlicense'd choice and if there aren't such available then next step would be to look for Copyfree license. It's like a little step before Unlicense but much much better than Copyleft. They also feature Public Domain and Unlicense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Arto Bendiken | 19 Mar 09:04 2014
Picon

Re: (boring licensing thread) Re: WebID sketch

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:36 AM, hellekin <hellekin <at> cepheide.org> wrote:
> On 03/18/2014 11:18 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>
>> How, exactly, dos UNLICENCE not favor the commons?

Gregg's question is a good one, as the public domain is the very
definition of the commons.

> *** The Public Domain allows defector developers to build proprietary
> code from public code, and share it without sharing the sources.  They
> could pick UNLICENSED code and modify it, and sell it back to you with
> some nasty feature builtin. That's how.

You are free not to purchase it. Indeed, you'd be a fool to purchase it.

We hereby heartily welcome any and all nefarious efforts by little
greedy evil corporate industrialists to fork RDF.rb and attempt to
sell it back to us in shiny wrapping. It will make for a good laugh.

> In contrast, the GPL still allows defectors to keep their own
> modifications for themselves, but forces them to share what they
> distribute.  That is to ensure that distributed code remains favorable
> to the user's freedom.
>
> Once the code is in the public domain, it's difficult to keep it for
> oneself, but it's possible.  The UNLICENSE fosters the commons, and GPL
> enforces the commons.

Slapping the GPL on a piece of software isn't enforcement. Taking
someone to court for a GPL violation, i.e. sending men with guns after
them, is enforcement. If you're not prepared to do the latter, there's
little point to the former. Gotta walk the talk.

The notion that just slapping the GPL on something will somehow make
evil people or evil corporations behave differently is a form of
magical thinking. Those who would benefit from your software without
reciprocity will do so in any case, with or without the implied
copyright-sanctioned threats; and regarding my software I say, they’re
 welcome to knock themselves out [1].

Indeed, this point is perhaps best demonstrated in Rob Landley's
writings and presentations on the infamous BusyBox GPL lawsuits [2],
which he initiated but in due course lost control over after they
became a nasty self-perpetuating and self-funding lawyer-enrichment
machine [3]. These days, he regrets the whole sordid affair. In short,
Landley used to be a True Believer, even a Prophet, of the Cult of
Stallman, but the lawsuits and the FSF's GPLv3 antics quite cured him.
Now he's all in on permissive licensing, already even a little public
domain-curious.

There's some very good perspective in Landley's recent presentation
[3] from a guy who's seen all sides of the story and converted just
about 180 degrees. The presentation is about the project he's now
leading to rewrite the whole Linux userland to be permissively
licensed, and includes choice words on the futility of GPL enforcement
(violations are matter of course) and the ongoing slow death of *GPL
as well; as Landley puts it, "Copyleft is dying. The one thing GPLv3
achieved was undermining GPLv2."

> There's an ongoing discussion re: GPL vs. PPL.  The Peer Production
> License is similar to the GPL but restricts commercial usage of the
> software to producers.  That is, only active cooperators are entitled to
> make money from their work.  That effectively cuts the middleman--i.e.,
> the capitalist--from the equation, but it does not prevent proprietary
> software companies to employ the same strategy, and exclude free
> software developers--that is, really, anyone that is not their
> partner--from contributing or using their software.

As the original author of RDF.rb, I acknowledge that anyone and
everyone is entitled to try and make a buck from my
publicly-available, published work. Good luck, I hope it works out for
you. In any case, it's no loss to me. (Incidentally, this is known as
a positive-sum outcome.)

> For those reasons, I prefer the GPL, even if I consider the legal
> framework to be a vast field on bullshit. [...]
>
> In a perfect world, we would not use any license at all.

People like to say that, but their actions demonstrate the contrary
and show what they really believe. They might do well to note that
their guru, the noble Mr. Stallman, is in fact forthright about being
opposed to ending the copyright monopoly [4]: "Richard is against
abolishing copyrights because, to his view, without copyright,
enforcing copyleft would be impossible."

Gregg, Ben, and I--plus many dozens of active contributors on this
mailing list--have *by our actions* made genuine, concrete steps
towards a post-copyright future, producing a useful, large code base
that is free and rid of the copyright monopoly [5], wholly free and
unencumbered for anyone to use for any purpose (including making a
buck). It is firmly on the right side of history, free and rid of the
poisonous legacy institution that, contrary to platitudes taught in
civics class, in fact always had its ignoble origins in censorship and
monopoly [6, 7], and is getting ever worse on that front, as none can
deny.

We are laboring at backporting the bright copyright-free future into
the copyright-afflicted present [8], increasing the overall wealth and
productivity of all mankind, and you say that we do not favor the
commons? We *are* the commons, and we are the future.

[1] http://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0
[4] http://rudd-o.com/monopolies-of-the-mind/thoughts-after-my-dinner-with-richard-stallman
[5] http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/
[6] http://questioncopyright.org/promise
[7] http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/01/history-of-copyright-part-1-black-death/
[8] http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing

-- 
Arto Bendiken |  <at> bendiken | http://ar.to

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Arto Bendiken | 17 Jul 17:52 2013
Picon

GitHub embraces the Unlicense

Friends,

Thanks to the efforts of githubbers Ben Lavender ( <at> bhuga) and Phil
Haack ( <at> haacked), GitHub users creating new repositories are now
offered "Public Domain (Unlicense)" as a licensing option in a
user-friendly license drop-down menu. Choosing this option will
automatically create an initial commit with a LICENSE file containing
the text of the Unlicense.

See the screenshot at [1], or, see the feature in action at [2]. (And
yes, the Unlicense is still the very last option in the drop-down
menu, but with alphabetical ordering that's a given, whether sorted by
'P' or 'U').

Also, the Unlicense is similarly featured on the new companion
ChooseALicense.com website launched by GitHub a couple of days ago [3,
4].

This is a significant milestone, and I predict this move will
significantly increase our adoption rate; which, incidentally, isn't
doing too shoddily in any case, with 1,000+ unlicensed projects
already on GitHub [5].

Still, the power of defaults can be witnessed using GitHub's real-time
code search, which shows that already 21 brand spanking new unlicensed
repositories have been created using this feature since it went live
on GitHub last night [6].

According to recent research, the majority of repositories on GitHub
contain no licensing information at all [7]. It seems that it is this
growing license-free [8] trend ("the kids these days!") that GitHub is
attempting to address through the roll-out of these features, and we
can only be thankful that they have enough of an eye towards the
future to have included the public domain as one default option
(unlike, say, Google Code, who expressly prohibit public domain code).

[1] https://twitter.com/theunlicense/status/357319194666209280/photo/1
[2] https://github.com/new
[3] http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
[4] http://choosealicense.com/licenses/public-domain/
[5] https://github.com/search?q=unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed
[6] https://github.com/search?q=unlicense+path%3A%2FLICENSE&type=Code&s=indexed
[7] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/18/github_licensing_study/
[8] http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing

-- 
Arto Bendiken |  <at> bendiken | http://ar.to/

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Arto Bendiken | 25 Jun 16:42 2013
Picon

The Unlicense now has a presence on social media

Everyone,

Due to popular request, I've gone ahead and created presences for the
Unlicense initiative on the most significant contemporary social media
outlets, i.e., Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and Reddit:

https://twitter.com/theunlicense

https://www.facebook.com/TheUnlicense

https://plus.google.com/117796491719586050994

http://www.reddit.com/r/unlicense

Also, to aid in the viral dissemination of information, Unlicense.org
now has the relevant social media "+1" buttons prominently displayed
above the fold:

http://unlicense.org/

Going forward, I will aim to post most updates, including featured
project list updates, at least at Twitter and Facebook.

-- 
Arto Bendiken |  <at> bendiken | http://ar.to/

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Onur BARLIK | 26 Apr 00:33 2013
Picon

Codechu Macroscope

Hi,
I've posted a new Project on my page under unlicense,
please add to your list.
thanks
 
Definition: Codechu Macroscope, keyboard & mouse macro recorder for Windows, features repositioning & scaling of mouse movement and altering playback speed, developed by Onur Barlık, is in the public domain.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unlicense" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unlicense+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
xiangfu | 17 Dec 13:21 2012
Picon

New nlicensed project: fpgatools

Fpgatools
 fpgatools is a toolchain to program field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). The only supported chip at this time is the xc6slx9, a 7 USD 45nm-generation fpga with 5720 6-input LUTs, block ram and multiply-accumulate devices.

More info: https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools

BTW:
 Anyone want help me on upload fpgatools to Debian: https://mentors.debian.net/package/fpgatools

Andy Elvey | 5 Sep 11:18 2012
Picon

ANNOUNCE: pd_readline

Just a quick message to announce pd_readline - a public-domain readline and command-history implementation (using the Unlicense).
It can be obtained from here -
https://github.com/mooseman
It is still a bit alpha-ish (I've had the occasional problem with a stack-smash) but it "generally behaves as expected" (for most values of "generally"...... ;)  )
Give it a go. Compile it, put the "test.txt" file in the same directory (that's just a dummy "command-history" file for now), and play around with it.  "Share and enjoy......"  ;)  

Jean-Marc Lienher | 6 Aug 21:51 2012
Picon

Update on my public domain list

Hi,


I moved my list and archive of public domain software to http://www.cod5.org/archive .
I added some new entries, but it's always mainly C source code.

I'm not anymore the owner of whoow.org, so could you update the unlicense.org page ?

Thanks in advance.

 Jean-Marc

Gioele Barabucci | 6 Mar 21:53 2012
Picon

Unlicense not to be reviewed by the OSI

It looks like the thread from the license-review <at> opensource.org ml 
somehow did not get to this mailing list.

Unlicense will not be reviewed by the OSI because it is a "crayon" 
licence (i.e. drafted by non legal professionals). Such licences have 
been problematic in the past. 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html

Although Unlicense will not be reviewed, some (supposed) flaws have been 
highlighted. 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html

To summarise: Unlicense has little chance of being reviewed by the OSI, 
let alone approved.

In the same news, CC0 has been withdrawn from the OSI process. 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000233.html

All this is sad, it is 2012 and yet there are no easy ways (backed by 
major organisations) to dedicate software to the public domain .

--
Gioele Barabucci <gioele <at> svario.it>

Kyle | 4 Sep 20:48 2011
Picon

question about contributor copyright waivers

Is it safe to state clearly, either by modifying the text of the Unlicense to include contributors, or by
making a note in a separate location, that anyone who contributes code or documentation to my project
understands that they have agreed to waive their copyrights when they agree to submit their
contribution, or is it still better to collect a waiver of copyright from each individual contributor? I
suppose the waivers could be collected along with individual names in a CONTRIBUTORS file, but is it
really necessary in the days of implied agreement, e.g. "by using this, you agree to the terms and
conditions..." this may seem like a rather silly question, but I really don't have the ability to pay
lawyers in case something goes wrong, so I guess I just need to be sure all my bases are covered in the
simplest way possible. Thanks for any advice.
~Kyle
Sent from my Wishdroid! :)


Gmane