yyc12345/stb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update why_public_domain.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sean Barrett 2015-04-14 02:00:59 -07:00
parent 2f17f1a93b
commit 31461003c7
1 changed files with 65 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

65
docs/why_public_domain.md
View File

@ -47,3 +47,68 @@ in the public domain:
vorbis audio files, but it may not actually work and if vorbis audio files, but it may not actually work and if
you have problems it's not my fault, but also please you have problems it's not my fault, but also please
report bugs so I can fix them"--so dumb! report bugs so I can fix them"--so dumb!
4. discussion from stb_howto.txt on what YOU should do for YOUR libs
EASY-TO-COMPLY LICENSE
I make my libraries public domain. You don't have to.
But my goal in releasing stb-style libraries is to
reduce friction for potential users as much as
possible. That means:
a. easy to build (what this file is mostly about)
b. easy to invoke (which requires good API design)
c. easy to deploy (which is about licensing)
I choose to place all my libraries in the public
domain, abjuring copyright, rather than license
the libraries. This has some benefits and some
drawbacks.
Any license which is "viral" to modifications
causes worries for lawyers, even if their programmers
aren't modifying it.
Any license which requires crediting in documentation
adds friction which can add up. Valve used to have
a page with a list of all of these on their web site,
and it was insane, and obviously nobody ever looked
at it so why would you care whether your credit appeared
there?
Permissive licenses like zlib and BSD license are
perfectly reasonable, but they are very wordy and
have only two benefits over public domain: legally-mandated
attribution and liability-control. I do not believe these
are worth the excessive verbosity and user-unfriendliness
these licenses induce, especially in the single-file
case where those licenses tend to be at the top of
the file, the first thing you see. (To the specific
points, I have had no trouble receiving attribution
for my libraries; liability in the face of no explicit
disclaimer of liability is an open question.)
However, public domain has frictions of its own, because
public domain declarations aren't necessary recognized
in the USA and some other locations. For that reason,
I recommend a declaration along these lines:
// This software is in the public domain. Where that dedication is not
// recognized, you are granted a perpetual, irrevocable license to copy
// and modify this file as you see fit.
I typically place this declaration at the end of the initial
comment block of the file and just say 'public domain'
at the top.
I have had people say they couldn't use one of my
libraries because it was only "public domain" and didn't
have the additional fallback clause, who asked if
I could dual-license it under a traditional license.
My answer: they can create a derivative work by
modifying one character, and then license that however
they like. (Indeed, *adding* the zlib or BSD license
would be such a modification!) Unfortunately, their
lawyers reportedly didn't like that answer. :(