[esotericn]

If you want to provide the source to your software, you put the code on the Internet and you're done.

You don't need to even choose a licence. That only comes in to play if you concern yourself with downstream users that care about licensing.

It really only becomes complicated when you want to release it and _also_ monetise it or restrict its use.

Licenses exist because of how this is ultimately at odds with how software actually works - it's basically legal DRM.

(I think licensing has valid uses in the current environment, but it's worth keeping in mind how absurd it is as a concept, it's basically a massive hack).

[Flimm]

Copyright applies by default. You do need to choose a license:

> When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can use, copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you.

See https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/

[esotericn]

I addressed this in my comment.

> That only comes in to play if you concern yourself with downstream users that care about licensing.

``` println!("gosh, no LICENSE!"); ```

I just published some source code without choosing a license.

(Yes, yes, I do licence my actual projects. But letting legalistic bullshit put people off releasing their source, even by a microscopic amount, is something that I disapprove of strongly.)

[icebraining]

No, unlicensed code is the DRMed one - you're implicitly stating that you reserve the right to impose restrictions or sue any of your users.

CC0 or MIT actually releases them from those restrictions.

[esotericn]

When you walk by me in the street, you're implicitly reserving the right to throw me in to oncoming traffic.

In reality, despite being strictly possible, this barely ever occurs in practice. I don't think it's fair to use the term "implicit" in that way.

No-one is suggesting that you write your startup's infrastructure based on random bits of code, that's obviously a bad idea.

I'd basically consider 'no licence' as equivalent to WTFPL. It scares off big companies. That's probably what you want anyway. If anyone cares enough they'll ask you to relicense it.

[dragonwriter]

> When you walk by me in the street, you're implicitly reserving the right to throw me in to oncoming traffic

No such right exists, so it is not implicitly reserved.

This is not the case, in law, with copyright.