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.