Licence

[spdegabrielle]

Please licence under the same terms as Racket.

[countvajhula]

This repo is public domain, so there's no need for a license! Would it help if I made this more explicit somewhere, such as the COPYING file convention used in the GNU community? Example.

[jo-sm]

I think it might be worth adding the license to info.rkt like described in https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3760. I'm not sure exactly which license makes the most sense on this list -- ~I didn't see anything that is just "public domain") but from what I can tell the closest is the [Creative Commons public domain declaration](https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html.~ Although it's still not the exact intention of the "license" on the readme, a closer approximation than the CC public domain is the Unlicense. So using that license I think it would be just adding this to info.rkt:

(define license
  '(Unlicense))

[Lazerbeak12345]

I'm no legal expert but here's wikipedia's page on Public Domain works in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States

I link this because as a US Citizen I'm unsure if it would be safe for me to contribute to this. I've seen a lot of janky licencing and this has got to the the weirdest yet. Legal review from an expert would be wise - but I don't care enough about this project to do that myself just to drop a single PR.

Lastly - I appreciate what you are going for. I like the idea, and I'm all for it. I just don't know if it'd be safe for me to contribute. (Note that It's safe to go with the Unlicence, MIT, BSD and many many more - but this, i'm unsure.)

As someone who's interacted with lots of code licences (but is by no means a certified expert), I suspect the Unlicence is exactly what you want. This licence appears (again not an expert) to be compatible with the ideas you've expressed in your "Declaration of Non-Ownership".

[countvajhula]

I once read a story in my newsfeed, something to the effect of "bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, according to science." A sensationalized and annoying title, of course, but the article described how existing models of flight could not account for how the bumblebee could fly, for it is too rotund and its wings too tiny!

Just imagine if the bumblebee waited until we figured out whether it could fly before making the attempt itself.

I hear you @Lazerbeak12345 . And believe me when I say that it is not from ignorance of these many issues that I advocate for this alternative but from knowledge of them. I could probably go on for years debating all the subtle points of how the current licensing and ownership model is wasteful, needlessly complicated, based on invalid assumptions, not serving its purpose, failing the cause of the common good, and in the end, that would be a waste of time, like the grounded bumblebee waiting in the wings, as it were, for judgement to be passed upon it. The bumblebee need only believe in itself and flap its little wings to silence the critics!

Drawing inspiration from this humble creature in its proud defiance, we too can save ourselves the trouble of endless deliberations, since the situation really is very simple. We don't need licenses. Let's stop using them. They are not a solution but a distraction from real solutions. We have a real solution, so let's invest in it and see how high we get.

Incidentally, even with the Unlicense, it was finally adopted on the basis of "proliferation" rather than inherent merit. Many said it wasn't legitimate, until mere adoption made it so. I think we must rely on adoption here, ourselves, so if you choose to participate in what I believe to be a real solution, I -- and I know I speak for many -- warmly welcome your contributions!

If not, then in the words of John Lennon, I hope someday you'll join us.

[Lazerbeak12345]

I'm very busy today and can't give this the full response this deserves. I'm not worried about the ownership statement in the file I'm considering to be the license, here's what I'm worried about:

• By default use of any software must be approved or granted by the owners (in this case the collective of contributors). This is only implied, and not my biggest concern.
• The same is for making derivative works. It's unclear if or when, and under which (if any) stipulations or conditions derivative works may be made.
• The same can be said of distribution.
• There is no liability statement to be found, so liability would by default fall on the owners. By contributing, I would put myself at risk of being labeled as partially liable for even frivolous harms.

My biggest concern is the last. Frivolous lawsuits are stupid, but they happen. I feel like these are very simple concerns to address, and can be addressed in many, many ways.

Note: no citations. I don't know where to even start looking for such things. Case law and common practice. most likely. Every reputable license I know of meets my criteria.

[countvajhula]

In case these address your concerns:

By default use of any software must be approved or granted by the owners (in this case the collective of contributors). This is only implied, and not my biggest concern.

The collective of contributors is not an owner. Every contributor to Qi explicitly disclaims ownership and copyright.

The same is for making derivative works. It's unclear if or when, and under which (if any) stipulations or conditions derivative works may be made. The same can be said of distribution.

As there is no copyright it's public domain -- there are no constraints on that as far as derivative works or distribution.

There is no liability statement to be found, so liability would by default fall on the owners. By contributing, I would put myself at risk of being labeled as partially liable for even frivolous harms.

There is no notion of ownership here. If owners can be held liable, well, where are they?