License, which one?

[Krock]

Hello,

Some days ago I had nothing to do and I thought:
"Hey, why not going craz- why not making a new license and see how the people react?"

And this was the result:

[spoiler=do not click me, it was a stupid idea]

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.

Code: Select all

SIMPLE DOCUMENT PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 1, January 2014

Copyright (C) 2014 Krock <mk939[at]ymail.com>

Everyone is permitted to distribute unmodified copies of this
license document, and changing as long as the name is changed.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS, WARRANTY, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

"Original work" describes copied and unmodified codes, text or graphics.
"Whole parts" describe a whole file or big pieces of a file.
You are asked to ask the creator for possible complications.

1.    It is permitted to copy and distribute copies and modifications of the original work.
    1a. You are obliged to give credits for the creator or to add a link to the source when you copy and distribute whole parts of the original work.
    1b. It is not allowed to change the license of the original work without permission of the creator.
    1c. Every addition to the original work must be licensed under the same, or stricter license than the current.
   
    The following rule is non-obligatory, but shows respect for the creator:
    1d. You are asked to give credits for the creator or to add a link to the source when you copy and distribute single parts of the original work.

2.    Selling the original work is not permitted.

3.    There is no warranty provided for everything under this license.

[/spoiler]

My grammar is not the best, but maybe it is enough short and easy to license new mods.

[rubenwardy]

"Add a link to the source" -> in specific.

"Distribute whole parts" -> what if I nick a small function? How big is "big"

"Selling the original work is not permitted." -> can they sell a version that has a single line of change?

"ALL RIGHTS TO THE CREATOR OF HIS/HER WORK" -> this means that you have not waivered any of your rights. It means that the licensee can not modify, redistribute, sell or derive from.

There is an or in some of the parts of the license. This means they don't have to do both.

They could interpret the or as here: (You are obliged to give credits for the creator) or (to add a link to the source when you copy and distribute whole parts of the original work.)

Just stick to GPL or CC. It's safer for the licensee.

[Krock]

Yes, I see, this is more stupid than useful.
I just got confused with all those licenses and tried to make an own, sinple one.

rubenwardy, what would you suggest to write in the last part?
Everything needs a compliated explanation, which explains itself again... and that makes the license again longer...
Is there even a serious way to get this license "valid" without a 100-line text?

[rubenwardy]

Yes, I see, this is more stupid than useful.
I just got confused with all those licenses and tried to make an own, sinple one.

rubenwardy, what would you suggest to write in the last part?
Everything needs a compliated explanation, which explains itself again... and that makes the license again longer...
Is there even a serious way to get this license "valid" without a 100-line text?

Just remove word diarrhea. Keep is as unambiguous as possible.

[Krock]

You could write the licence in c++. If minetest would be written in English instead of c++ it would contain much more bugs.

Fine. What's the variable for: "warranty"?

[lightonflux]

So a non-free license[1]? Why?

Why You Shouldn’t Write Your Own License – Take a look at the linked posts.

And what is this?

The following rule is non-obligatory, but shows respect for the creator:

And then:

Selling the original work is not permitted.

So what is the point of it? It is a conflict. Or just unnecessary text.

why not making a new license and see how the people react?

As much as i like to see you getting into licenses, i don't like your license.

I would not touch code that has your license. I couldn't be sure that it does not conflict with a license i choose, because of the bit i showed above.

If you want a short License then use the BSD-2-clause license. It's widely accepted.

If you want it shorter: WTFPL

BTW: Naming the author is required by copyright law…

[Krock]

LCS["warranty"] returns me an error: "Error_fatal_error_crash_in_1_second_error_007"
[serious]
I think I should overwork it and make it better later.
If there are some people willing to make this license done, then I would be happy for help.
[/serious]
EDIT: Error post 404 not found!

[Calinou]

Please, don't create your own license, avoid license proliferation.

[mauvebic]

avoid license proliferation.

It's a bit late for that :P GPLv2,v3, LGPL, WTFPL, all the CC's, apache, BSD, BDSM, etc. :p

[lightonflux]

avoid license proliferation.

It's a bit late for that :P GPLv2,v3, LGPL, WTFPL, all the CC's, apache, BSD, BDSM, etc. :p

Well those licenses are well defined and we already know which are (in)compatible. Not the same situation with new licenses like the one above!