Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Which is the most permissive open-source license available?

"Permissive" would be defined as "the minimal requirements about how the software can be redistributed".

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Mark Trapp Feb 13 '12 at 4:28

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

8  
definitely not GPL. –  Bryan Oakley Feb 12 '12 at 22:41
    
"Public Domain", I would expect. –  Crashworks Feb 12 '12 at 23:09
    
"Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!"... you may also want to look at other posts that have asked the same question on here and stackoverflow. –  jmq Feb 13 '12 at 0:04
    
Is there agreement on what "permissive" means? –  Keith Thompson Feb 13 '12 at 0:07
    
of course not... that's why it's a subjective post (but the moderators don't agree, so argue away!) –  jmq Feb 13 '12 at 0:10

3 Answers 3

I believe that your question doesn't have a single answer because there are lots of different licenses. I use the simplified BSD license in my projects which is very permissive.

share|improve this answer

The WTFPL (Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License) :

The WTFPL (Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License) is an infrequently used, extremely permissive free software license. The original Version 1.0 license, released March 2000, was written by Banlu Kemiyatorn who used it for Window Maker artwork. Samuel "Sam" Hocevar, a French programmer who was the Debian project leader from 17 April 2007 to 16 April 2008, wrote version 2.0. It allows for redistribution and modification of the software under any terms—licensees are encouraged to "do what the fuck [they] want to". The license was approved as a GPL-compatible free software license by the Free Software Foundation.

share|improve this answer
    
lol this is funny –  thelolcat Feb 12 '12 at 22:09
    
I wonder if the OP also includes no protection from being sued in his meaning of permissive...... –  mattnz Feb 13 '12 at 0:48
    
In legal terms is there any distinction whatsoever between WTFPL and making a work Public Domain? –  Ben Brocka Feb 13 '12 at 2:00
3  
@BenBrocka: Another difference is that in many jurisdictions you cannot give up your copyright, i.e. you cannot put a work in the Public Domain. For example, in my country, putting a work in the Public Domain involves the rather painful and lengthy process of committing suicide and waiting 70 years. So, if you put a work in the Public Domain, I cannot use it in Germany: it is still copyrighted, because you cannot give up your copyright, and all rights are exclusively reserved to the copyright holder, because there is no license on it. –  Jörg W Mittag Feb 13 '12 at 2:43
2  
@BenBrocka: Of course, the act of declaring something to be in the Public Domain may be construed by the courts as an implicit blanket non-exclusive license to all rights. But then again, it may not. Just putting a very permissive license on it is so much clearer. –  Jörg W Mittag Feb 13 '12 at 2:46

Between the two you listed MIT is much more permissive than GPL (or LGPL).

If you want even more permissive, there's always Beerware and as a side effect you might even get some free beer out of it.

share|improve this answer

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