> You must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this software from you, with or without changes, also gets the text of this license or a link to https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0.
This is the kicker for me. I don’t want to live in a world where every piece of software has a list of 300 licenses for every other piece of software that went into building it. It’s dumb and it’s impractical.
The post claims that the disclaimer of warranty is the reason this is included in the Blue Oak license. (To summarize, if I put software online with, e.g the BSD0 license, which doesn’t require a license to be distributed with the software, and you take a function from me and put it in your GitHub repo, and someone else takes that from you, and that piece of code breaks, they could sue the original author, me, because they weren’t informed that there wasn’t a warranty.) I wish they had a source for that claim.
Free software in general is an argument for reform of intellectual property.
Any permissive or copyleft license is effectively a hack of the copyright system, using it for the opposite of its intended purpose.
Let's also not forget that US copyright law started out as one thing and has been continuously changed so that Disney can keep making money off Mickey Mouse.
This is the kicker for me. I don’t want to live in a world where every piece of software has a list of 300 licenses for every other piece of software that went into building it. It’s dumb and it’s impractical.
The post claims that the disclaimer of warranty is the reason this is included in the Blue Oak license. (To summarize, if I put software online with, e.g the BSD0 license, which doesn’t require a license to be distributed with the software, and you take a function from me and put it in your GitHub repo, and someone else takes that from you, and that piece of code breaks, they could sue the original author, me, because they weren’t informed that there wasn’t a warranty.) I wish they had a source for that claim.