I don't recognize the validity of copyright at all… my thinking is this:

1) This contract is meaningless to those who don't recognize copyright
2) This contract is only meaningful for those who do.

Bottom line, hang people by their own laws but don't force your laws on anyone. If they voluntarily consent to be governed by copyright law (by using it) then you are merely enforcing a contract they consented to.

Effectively our two stances are identical because your "license" presumes you have a right to force them to forfeit all claims to "intellectual property" and the only basis for your so-called license is "intellectual property".

Give to God what is Gods and to Caesar what is Caesar's… how you interpret this depends upon each individuals personal perception on what belongs to God and Caesar… likewise how you interpret your license depends upon whether or not you believe in copyright is enforceable.






On Dec 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Adam Gibson <ekaggata@???> wrote:

> Heh, it's funny this whole convo popped up today. A few hours ago I
> decided to go with this as a "license":
>
> "By using this code in any way you forfeit all specious claims to
> anything as nonsensical as "intellectual property""
>
> If anything your verbiage doesn't go far enough, Daniel, since you
> recognize the validity of the concept of copyright in the first place :)
>
> But good on you anyway. Perhaps I went too far :))
>
> On 12/17/2013 10:58 PM, Daniel Larimer wrote:
>> Don't attempt to use copyright (a government privilege) to promote freedom. That is the problem.
>>
>> I say you license all software under the following terms:
>> 1) This software is free to use without any restriction what so ever to anyone who claims no copyright or patents.
>> 2) This software may not be used by anyone who holds copyrights or patents that are not put in the public domain.
>>

>> Live by the sword, die by the sword.    

>>
>> Attempting to use copyright law to give you the right to compel a 3rd party to act by releasing their code is missing the point. It gives legitimacy to copyright in the first place. Instead, only those who believe in copyright and patents should be subject to them. Let them eat their own dog food.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Luke-Jr" <luke@???> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:46:29 PM Aimee Maree wrote:
>>>> BSD was permissive so Apple or to molester it and call it OSX ....
>>>>
>>>> and I agree if you don't want it what else to use to protect it from abuse
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> GPL was ineffective to stop Apple as well. KHTML was GPL, so Apple just
>>> minimally abided by the GPL terms in such a way that made their one-big-patch
>>> useless to the KHTML developers...
>>>
>>> Luke
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem