I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/
Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but confusing and contradictory.
The license text is as follows:
=====
# DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 1.1, December 2016
Copyright (C) [year] [fullname]
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document.
DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
1. Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick.
Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances:
1a. Outright copyright infringement - Don't just copy this and change the name. 1b. Selling the unmodified original with no work done what-so-ever, that's REALLY being a dick. 1c. Modifying the original work to contain hidden harmful content. That would make you a PROPER dick.
2. If you become rich through modifications, related works/services, or supporting the original work, share the love. Only a dick would make loads off this work and not buy the original work's creator(s) a pint.
3. Code is provided with no warranty. Using somebody else's code and bitching when it goes wrong makes you a DONKEY dick. Fix the problem yourself. A non-dick would submit the fix back.
====
I can't tell if this is non-free or not. Certainly the restrictions on sales of unmodified work and the restriction on certain types of modifications would be problematic, but then I can't tell if the "just don't be a dick" part is a request or a requirement (which then contradicts the "do whatever you like" portion).
So, is this another one for the "Bad Licenses" section?
- J<
This "license" is non-free.
~tom
On Wed, May 2, 2018, 9:29 PM Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/
Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but confusing and contradictory.
The license text is as follows:
=====
# DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 1.1, December 2016
Copyright (C) [year] [fullname]
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document.
DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick.
Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances:
1a. Outright copyright infringement - Don't just copy this and change the name. 1b. Selling the unmodified original with no work done what-so-ever, that's REALLY being a dick. 1c. Modifying the original work to contain hidden harmful content. That would make you a PROPER dick.
If you become rich through modifications, related works/services, or supporting the original work, share the love. Only a dick would make loads off this work and not buy the original work's creator(s) a pint.
Code is provided with no warranty. Using somebody else's code and bitching when it goes wrong makes you a DONKEY dick. Fix the problem yourself. A non-dick would submit the fix back.
====
I can't tell if this is non-free or not. Certainly the restrictions on sales of unmodified work and the restriction on certain types of modifications would be problematic, but then I can't tell if the "just don't be a dick" part is a request or a requirement (which then contradicts the "do whatever you like" portion).
So, is this another one for the "Bad Licenses" section?
- J<
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
IANAL, TINLA.
Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
I can't tell if this is non-free or not.
Nonfree, of course.
Certainly the restrictions on sales of unmodified work and the restriction on certain types of modifications would be problematic, but then I can't tell if the "just don't be a dick" part is a request or a requirement (which then contradicts the "do whatever you like" portion).
There is nothing unusual, when more specific part contradicts to more general. And there is no requirement that general permission must not end with a full stop, although that is arguably not a good style.
Consider a following imaginable BSD licence, for instance:
| Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without | modification, are permitted. The following conditions shall be met: | | 1. ... | 2. ... | 3. ...
On 3.5.2018 03:28, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/
Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but confusing and contradictory.
...
The author(s) of this awesome license may think their license is free. From the README[1]:
As developers we all want to protect our code from dicks that try to steal, sell, infringe or just generally rip us off. For this we have licenses like GPL, MIT, etc.
Sometimes however, you release a project where you just don't care what happens to the code. For this Sam Hocevar created the WTFPL which is a brilliant license.
For those of you who want something in between, try the DBAD license.
I wouldn't say that DBAD is between GPL/MIT and WTFPL. That statement is completely bogus. If you care about this, it might be a good idea to inform the authors that they are actually being the Ds in here.
[1] https://github.com/philsturgeon/dbad