diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | license.txt | 21 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | rationale.txt | 71 |
2 files changed, 92 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/license.txt b/license.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3af3ebf --- /dev/null +++ b/license.txt @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ + + +SUNSET LICENSE +Draft Version 1, June 2017 + + +1. You may copy, modify, use, sell, or distribute this work for any purpose. + +2. If you sell or distribute this work, whether verbatim or modified, you must +also make the source code available for no extra charge. + +3. A modified version of this work must be clearly labeled as such. + +4. Derivative works must also be licensed under this license. Dynamically +linking to this work does not constitute creating a derivative work. + +5. If a minimum of 10 years have passed since the date of first publishing for a +part of this work, then that part is considered in the public domain and you can +do whatever you wish with it, regardless of all other clauses. + + diff --git a/rationale.txt b/rationale.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7a88b86 --- /dev/null +++ b/rationale.txt @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ + + +Sunset License Rationale + + +Purpose + +First and foremost, this distribution license will be a license with a sunset +provision, to limit the duration of time before bits of the work start to pass +into the public domain. + +Secondly, it will be a simplified, informal copyleft license. The style being +sought after is similar to the Unlicense, and if the length is significantly +over that it's a bug. + + + + +Reasoning + +The duration of copyright has been extended over and over again to the point +that it's de facto perpetual. Copyright law has been famously subverted with +the GPL to produce "copyleft" which has the purpose of keeping a work open +rather than closed. The idea is to do something similar to subvert the time +that a work remains under copyright protections. + +If done right the result should be that anyone wanting to use parts of a work +under the rules of public domain will either have to use code many years out of +date, or the work itself has stagnated to the point where nobody cares anyway. + +Combining this idea with minimalistic copyleft clauses should fill another +hole in available licenses, as all current ones are exceedingly verbose and +precise. + + + + +Scope + +This is primarily conceived of as a software license. While the result may be +applicable to other works, it may not be optimal for them. + +Software patents are not something that will be mentioned or considered. The +position taken is that if software patents are a problem in your country, you +should reform the law. + +Warranty disclaimers will also neither be mentioned nor considered. The position +taken is that your software should do what you say it does, and that you should +be responsible for what you release to the public. Again, if this is a problem +in your country, you should reform the law. + +The focus is on the work actually released, not on spreading the license itself, +so dynamic linking will not be considered to constitute making a derivative +work. + +Waiving anti-circumvention laws should be redundant and unnecessary, as the +license allows usage of the work for any purpose without restriction. + +The license is not an EULA. Acceptance is not required to make use of the +licensed work. + + + + +License License + +You may copy, distribute and use this rationale and accompanying license +document verbatim for any purpose. Changing them is allowed so long as the +license name is changed. + + |