I've always liked the MIT license because it is closer to copyleft than GPL variants. I get having to use a license so that people who use the software are legally protected, and attribution can be nice too, so while I don't agree with the legitimacy of software licensing as a whole, in practical terms the MIT is a good and safe license that doesn't impose lots of restrictions on its users.
WTFPL and unlicense are better in my opinion, but lawyers might not like them. if you don't like the idea of lawyers running the world though, they're great. Public domain is the way. Even then, I despise the idea of even acknowledging "Public Domain" as a concept.
But back to my original question, are most people using these licenses because they actually believe in their legitimacy? I always assumed it was to facilitate nonsensical copyright laws.
From wikipedia:
""" Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, and scientific discoveries. Similar approaches have been applied to certain patents.
"""
Ugh..yeah. Then I don't get it OP, I hope copyleft does indeed die. Either you have a commercial agreement or a contract with a person or you don't. The idea of publishing some work (software, book,etc..) and then by default and without any contractual agreement, dictating what a person does with that work that you published publicly is ridiculous. I know it is the law, but that doesn't make it right. What you put out there to the public, you have no right to control. Either close source your software and require a proper contractual agreement to use it, or make it actually free and actually open. It isn't free if you're going to tell me what to do with it later on, that's a deceptively hidden cost, it isn't really free.
Wouldn't it be in the true spirit of open source and the Linux kernel if absolutley anyone can do whatever they want with the kernel's source code?
The thing that irritates me is that if they want money, let them charge for it. No problem with that. You can charge for your work. But to make it "free" and then demand that the law enforces control over the software after someone has adapted it feels like such a crooked way of doing things. I would prefer to pay for it, so that I too can get some guarantees of the software being viable in return as well.
It sounds to me like 1) You don't truly own copyleft software 2) You don't get any warranty, or expectation of viability 3) certainly, there is no expectation of support of any kind 4) It is marketed as 'free' (deceptively)
if people make modifications to the software and keep that private later on, let them. it's free, it's theirs now, they can do what they want. If they value it though, it is in their interest to keep the upstream project viable, so sensible users will contribute back. Especially considering how globalized software dev has been, you can't even practically enforce something as weak as copyleft outside of the EU, Canada, Japan, and maybe (long shot) in the US.