[_ph_]

Proper licensing of software is a technical requirement, if you want your software to be used. The technicalities of the law might be unneccessary complex, bizarre even in some cases, but thats how the law is. We programmers are not goint to change that. So, if you really don't care, just take the MIT license, which is about the simplest of the widely used licenses. With that license, anyone interested has a clear base to use your software. Unless of course, you don't intend to share your software for real in the first place.

[burntsushi]

Your original comment said you "didn't understand," not that you "didn't agree." The former prompts a very different answer than the latter, but you're acting as if you said the latter.

To understand it, all you need to do is understand that some folks take actions based on ideological beliefs, often to the exclusion of pragmatism, knowingly or not.

[_ph_]

No, it doesn't. I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea. Yes, people are free in their beliefs and expression. But if they try to do this with a nonstandard license, it only means, that the software is effectively not published as open source.

The technicalities of the law are very complicated. Tiny mistakes can render a license unusable or just invalid. So, the best advice I can give any author is to stick to one of the well-known license, as this makes it very likely that the software can be used by others.

[burntsushi]

> I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea.

You really don't understand that sometimes people act idealistically, often to the exclusion of pragmatism? What don't you understand about it?

Please consider that not everyone has the same life priorities as you.