Tell me more ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 14 down vote favorite
5

I'm looking for an open source license that lets people do whatever they want - just like the MIT license - just as long as they attribute the original author, i.e. me.

Does a common license exist for this? If so, what is it?

share|improve this question
Yes, I think so. – Ingo Sep 22 '11 at 18:30
@Ingo See my edit. I should know better than to be colloquial amongst coders. – Maxpm Sep 22 '11 at 18:32
3  
What form of attribution are you seeking? MIT License stipulates that the license itself must be distributed and the copyright holder (i.e. you) is included in the license. – Bernard Sep 22 '11 at 18:42
@Maxpm - sorry for that, but I'd put a better answer if you had told us what you already looked at and why you think it's no good. – Ingo Sep 22 '11 at 18:51

5 Answers

up vote 21 down vote accepted

The MIT License itself says:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Just make sure to put your own name in the "above copyright notice".

share|improve this answer
3  
Aah. This is why IANAL. – Maxpm Sep 22 '11 at 19:24
Also pick the original version of the MIT license if you wish the users (and not just the developers) of that derivative software to have access to your attribution. – Stephan Branczyk Sep 22 '11 at 22:00
up vote 4 down vote

The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (or WTFPL) is very close to what you're looking for. It is only lacking attribution.

It sounds like a joke license, but it's approved as GPL-compatible by the FSF.

You could just add a bit to the license requesting attribution, but I'm no lawyer so I don't know if that would fly in court. What are the odds of a court case over your project?

Actually it does contain a copyright notice. and therefore attribution

share|improve this answer
INAL, but in some countries, like Germany, you can't waive all your rights. Thus, the whole WTFPL license contract may be invalid, giving you the right to sue everybody who uses your code because he didn't acquire the rights to do so (since the license contract is invalid). – FUZxxl Mar 19 '12 at 22:04
Free Software Foundation licenses are the best :) – Ross Mar 19 '12 at 23:41
up vote 3 down vote

The GPL has a history of confusing folks and scaring them off. The Apache License is more straightforward and probably what you want.

share|improve this answer
From the Apache License: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; – Matthew Flynn Sep 22 '11 at 22:46
You were right. I stand corrected. Sorry about that. – Stephan Branczyk Sep 22 '11 at 23:19
up vote 1 down vote

You could also check out the creative commons licenses (probably the 'by' license).

share|improve this answer
3  
Creative Commons licenses are not recommended for use with software. wiki.creativecommons.org/… – Thomas Owens♦ Sep 22 '11 at 22:02
up vote -6 down vote

I guess GNU General Public License might be the answer for you.

share|improve this answer
3  
Definitely not. You can not distribute and sell GPL software parts with commercial parts whitout releasing it all as GPL. – Jonas Sep 22 '11 at 18:41
@Jonas I think the OP is looking for an opensource license and not looking to sell – Pankaj Upadhyay Sep 22 '11 at 18:43
11  
I don't think the GPL applies, based on the OP's statement "lets people do whatever they want". The GPL requires releasing derivative works under the GPL. This is not like the MIT license. – JeremyDWill Sep 22 '11 at 18:46
3  
@Jonas The GPL has nothing to do with selling. You can sell any GPL'd software you want. What the GPL covers is distribution, whether for a price or free. And it specifically forbids combining and then distributing (i.e., giving to others) GPL and non-GPL code, which is the opposite of "Do whatever you want" is the original question. – KeithB Sep 22 '11 at 20:04
3  
This answer has definite significance. It has helped to understand GPL much better than before. Initially i was thinking of deleting the answer but these comments has made sure that this post should be alive – Pankaj Upadhyay Sep 22 '11 at 20:09
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.