|
|
@@ -47,3 +47,68 @@ in the public domain:
|
|
|
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. 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. :(
|
Sean Barrett