The point of the CLEVER LICENSE is that there is no "enforcement." It grants ultimate freedom. The recipient of a product under this license can do whatever they wish with it. Enforcement is the polar opposite of the grant of freedom.

Read the language _carefully_. I wrote it with clever care.

"Do whatever is clever. Do as you wish with this product."

The phrase, "whatever is clever" means, "whatever you find suitable for your purpose."

The phrase, "do as you WISH" is a phrase of personal sovereignty, of one's own private law, giving unbridled lawful freedom.

"Do whatever is clever shall be the whole of the law."

The phrase, "SHALL be the whole of the law" specifies that the terms of the license are private law. Coupled with the prior phrase, the grantee's wish is the only restraint and only enforcement necessary.

When a monarch says, "I wish to receive porterhouse steak for dinner," he or she _will_ receive it. In law for a sovereign to "wish" is to _command_.

This meaning is similar to the phrase, "Your wish is my command."

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Then I'd have to ask: what is the benefit of choosing it over CC0 if by law, there won't be any enforcement (not even attribution)? At least CC0 is well known.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well this is /c/programminghumor, I would assume mostly it's meant as a joke.

[–] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net 1 points 8 months ago

@pastermil@sh.itjust.works

When you assume you make a donkey out of ewe. Don't be a sheep.

[–] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Things like "enforcement" and "attribution" are restrictions, the opposite of freedom.

Why do you want a license that allows you to sue the users of your supposedly free software?

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Creative Common license are well accepted. It requires attribution for derivative works. Due to its clear legal wording, you can enforce it.

Why I want to be able to sue? Exactly so that people won't take others' freedom, just like why the law exist in free world. Haven't you read about the many cases companies violating GPL got sued?

[–] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Clever License gives real freedom, individual freedom that is absent from the popular ideological licenses. Clever License doesn't need an "enforcement" mechanism because it is a real gift with no strings attached. A gift with strings attached is a snare.

No strings, no snare. "Do whatever is clever. Do as you wish with this product."

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

There seems to be a more robust solution already. It's called Public Domain.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I think it's the other way around, however... You need to word it so your users can enforce it against you even if you yourself become malicious. Otherwise you're not really allowing them anything. And for that you'd need to word it so it doesn't depend on your interpretation, but on theirs. And it'd need to hold up in court for them. So the language needs to be specific and with well-defined words. Every bit of vagueness it the user's problem and limits/restricts them.

[–] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Otherwise you’re not really allowing them anything."

"Do whatever you wish with this product."

That is allowing them anything and everything they wish.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Hehe. Yeah I meant per default, everything is copyrighted. So it'd fall back to being restricted and thus "not allowing anything"... If the wording doesn't hold up... I'm not really in the position to judge this. Could be very well the case that once somebody touches it, it's not "this" product anymore and it's no longer covered. Or taking just parts of it is also not "this product". Or a copy. I can imagine that something like that is the reason why other licenses go on and on talking about modified versions and copies etc... But I'm really not a lawyer and you're right with being creative with things. I did not intend to be too negative 🤗

[–] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net -1 points 8 months ago

you are trying too hard to be clever

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Cleaver, in programmer land, has a specific jargon meaning though. Something cleaver is something obfuscated and, while generally technically correct, absolutely something that should not be merged into the codebase. Cleaver is a pretty terrible term to use.

Also, we've already got the BSD/MIT licenses that are essentially carte blanche passes.