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

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/nothings/stb

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sean Barrett 2015-04-14 03:03:37 -07:00
commit e5a2c3cf86
1 changed files with 98 additions and 31 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

129
docs/why_public_domain.md
View File

@ -3,47 +3,114 @@ in the public domain:
1. Public domain vs. viral licenses 1. Public domain vs. viral licenses
Why is this library public domain? Why is this library public domain?
Because more people will use it. Because it's not viral, people are Because more people will use it. Because it's not viral, people are
not obligated to give back, so you could argue that it hurts the not obligated to give back, so you could argue that it hurts the
development of it, and then because it doesn't develop as well it's development of it, and then because it doesn't develop as well it's
not as good, and then because it's not as good, in the long run not as good, and then because it's not as good, in the long run
maybe fewer people will use it. I have total respect for that maybe fewer people will use it. I have total respect for that
opinion, but I just don't believe it myself for most software. opinion, but I just don't believe it myself for most software.
2. Public domain vs. attribution-required licenses 2. Public domain vs. attribution-required licenses
The primary difference between public domain and, say, a Creative Commons The primary difference between public domain and, say, a Creative Commons
commercial / non-share-alike / attribution license is solely the commercial / non-share-alike / attribution license is solely the
requirement for attribution. (Similarly the BSD license and such.) requirement for attribution. (Similarly the BSD license and such.)
While I would *appreciate* acknowledgement and attribution, I believe While I would *appreciate* acknowledgement and attribution, I believe
that it is foolish to place a legal encumberment (i.e. a license) on that it is foolish to place a legal encumberment (i.e. a license) on
the software *solely* to get attribution. the software *solely* to get attribution.
In other words, I'm arguing that PD is superior to the BSD license and In other words, I'm arguing that PD is superior to the BSD license and
the Creative Commons 'Attribution' license. If the license offers the Creative Commons 'Attribution' license. If the license offers
anything besides attribution -- as does, e.g., CC NonCommercial-ShareAlike, anything besides attribution -- as does, e.g., CC NonCommercial-ShareAlike,
or the GPL -- that's a separate discussion. or the GPL -- that's a separate discussion.
3. Other aspects of BSD-style licenses besides attribution 3. Other aspects of BSD-style licenses besides attribution
Permissive licenses like zlib and BSD license are perfectly reasonable Permissive licenses like zlib and BSD license are perfectly reasonable
in their requirements, but they are very wordy and in their requirements, 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,
but one I have a lot of difficulty imagining there being
any actual doubt about in court. Sometimes I explicitly
note in my libraries that I make no guarantees about them
being fit for purpose, but it's pretty absurd to do this;
as a whole, it comes across as "here is a library to decode
vorbis audio files, but it may not actually work and if
you have problems it's not my fault, but also please
report bugs so I can fix them"--so dumb!
4. full 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 have only two benefits over public domain: legally-mandated
attribution and liability-control. I do not believe these attribution and liability-control. I do not believe these
are worth the excessive verbosity and user-unfriendliness are worth the excessive verbosity and user-unfriendliness
these licenses induce, especially in the single-file these licenses induce, especially in the single-file
case where those licenses tend to be at the top of case where those licenses tend to be at the top of
the file, the first thing you see. 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.)
To the specific points, I have had no trouble receiving However, public domain has frictions of its own, because
attribution for my libraries; liability in the face of public domain declarations aren't necessary recognized
no explicit disclaimer of liability is an open question, in the USA and some other locations. For that reason,
but one I have a lot of difficulty imagining there being I recommend a declaration along these lines:
any actual doubt about in court. Sometimes I explicitly
note in my libraries that I make no guarantees about them // This software is in the public domain. Where that dedication is not
being fit for purpose, but it's pretty absurd to do this; // recognized, you are granted a perpetual, irrevocable license to copy
as a whole, it comes across as "here is a library to decode // and modify this file as you see fit.
vorbis audio files, but it may not actually work and if
you have problems it's not my fault, but also please I typically place this declaration at the end of the initial
report bugs so I can fix them". 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. :(
```