[melbourne-pug] OS license requirements

[Ben Finney]

Noon Silk <noonslists at gmail.com> writes:

> There's also this:
>     - https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License

While it's natural for people who like programming to also experiment
with writing their own license texts, it is to be strongly discouraged.

Please, do not consider the license landscape to be an open banquet. The
vast majority of lesser-known license texts out there are poor choices.

Law does *not* work according to pure logic, and the ramifications of a
particular license text can be both confusing, seemingly-nonsensical,
*and* real nevertheless.

We non-lawyers are not experts in discerning the many effects of a
license text, and we should not be choosing a license merely because it
seems to say what we want.

Worse, the effects of a license for software have ramifications beyond
one's own work: the recipient will often want to combine several works,
and needs to satisfy all the licenses simultaneously. A little-known
license will more often make this onerous or impossible, simply because
it has not been tested as widely in combination with others.

When choosing a license for software, please, choose one of the very
widely-understood and widely-implemented free software licenses: the GNU
licenses (GPL v3 “or, at your option, any later version”); the Apache
License 2.0; the Expat (sometimes called “MIT”) license; the 2-clause
BSD license. Others are a distant lower option, *because* they're less
widely used.

-- 
 \           “I do not believe in forgiveness as it is preached by the |
  `\        church. We do not need the forgiveness of God, but of each |
_o__)                    other and of ourselves.” —Robert G. Ingersoll |
Ben Finney