can't be bothered to, plus, I don't particularly like the MIT or BSD licenses (they're still licences, and you shouldn't need my permission). Sometimes, I put in a copyheart statement.
I also understand the liability part of the licence and I think it's disgusting: Limiting your liability by indemnifying yourself with a statement that no one is going to read, as far as I'm concerned, also means that you've lost. If someone wants to sue me for misusing my software then they can live out the rest of their lives as the miserable, tortured soul that they obviously are.
those countries that don't have public domain concepts are obviously putting themselves at an economic disadvantage - so they'll get what's coming to them. I only fear that we are headed that way in this country.
It's not just about removing the liability off of you, the author. A clear license also removes the liability of anyone using your code in a production environment that you may feel like suing someday.
We don't know you to trust you. There are plenty of people who are not decent and 'just trust me' is rarely reassuring. And you don't need to indemnify yourself in a licence. Poul-Henning Kemp doesn't indemnify himself with his beerware.
then don't use my code. In the end, what you do is your choice, but I'd rather not get the state involved in my acts of sharing - and that should implicitly suggest that I'm not interested in leveraging the state to take from you. If you can't trust that, then fine. I'm sorry for you.
It isn't that though, you are giving permission here quite clearly so if someone stumbles across this thread then they know some of the intention, however if they found the code without knowing the provenance, then they may not know that it is considered open to use, given the society in which we live.
Now I am not suggesting that you strap boilerplate to it, however a note that reassures people of their freedom to use the code without fear of reprisal is a polite consideration.
It is not because of wishing to be protected by the law, but rather trying to avoid being bashed over the head with it at some unspecified future time.
To expect complete strangers to trust that they understand your motives and opinions on the matter of whether they can use your work without worrying about it, would seem to be a stretch, at least in the general case unless it is made reasonably explicit, because a lot of the time society does not act that way and so it is useful to have some form of social signalling to let people know what the score is, which is all that licences are anyway, when you get right down to it.
And as far as trust goes, this is not a binary proposition, the middle ground is vast and has jungles in it.
>Now I am not suggesting that you strap boilerplate to it, however a note that reassures people of their freedom to use the code without fear of reprisal is a polite consideration.
I might do that. My other software comes with copyheart notices, I just hadn't gotten around to tacking it onto dali yet.... Originally dali is part of a now-on-ice project, which carried the notice.
Sorry by the way for nagging, is good of you in the first place to give stuff away for free without people like me then winging about the way you choose to do it. :)
I also understand the liability part of the licence and I think it's disgusting: Limiting your liability by indemnifying yourself with a statement that no one is going to read, as far as I'm concerned, also means that you've lost. If someone wants to sue me for misusing my software then they can live out the rest of their lives as the miserable, tortured soul that they obviously are.
those countries that don't have public domain concepts are obviously putting themselves at an economic disadvantage - so they'll get what's coming to them. I only fear that we are headed that way in this country.