Comments on: The General Pirate License

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:49:21 +0000

Fantastic idea! And it’s got a pirate theme. Although this word may be problematic because it connotes software “piracy” – I don’t think it applies in this case. The whole point of a licence is to follow the guidelines and so anyone under the licence should be well aware of the context of the use of “pirate”.

By: Donald

Donald — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:36:53 +0000

I’m not sure what value this license actually has. Under the GPL, you can choose to not to include contact information, and can even register the copyright on a work anonymously or using a pseudonym. Section 7 allows you to restrict people from misrepresenting the origin of a modified version, and allows you to require that modified versions be marked in such a way as to show that they are different. You can also restrict the use of author names in advertising material. In addition, the GPL is a widely used license, that has an actually effective disclaimer of liability. It would be unwise to distribute software without an effective disclaimer.

Also, even if the word ‘pirate’ is problematic when referring to someone who is infringing, if you give permission to someone to use a work, what does that have to do with the notion of copyright ‘piracy’?

By: John

John — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:19:58 +0000

Do you really need a license for what is essentially a “no license” license

By: Bookmarks for November 15th through November 16th « LostFocus

Bookmarks for November 15th through November 16th « LostFocus — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:01:35 +0000

[...] The General Pirate license | Diovo – [...]

By: Niyaz PK

Niyaz PK — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:30:36 +0000

bd_, Scott,

Thanks for the suggestions. I guess you are right about removing some clauses.

I have updated the post.

By: Scott Robinson

Scott Robinson — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:54:40 +0000

I think less clauses would make it more “piratical.”

Are you relinquishing responsibility and/or authorship? For example, as a contract, the non-disclosure clause seems difficult to enforce.

Really, it’s missing a guiding manifesto. I recommend your closing sentence:

This license should be used if you want your ideas or work to be shared and modified freely, but you don’t want to maintain or support the original ideas unless you really wish to do so.

Which implies the sufficient and necessary clauses are #2 (no-attribution), an edited #6 (no-warranty) and #5 (viral).

If you “want” to offer a warranty, that can be agreed upon in a separate contract. Stating “if you want” isn’t enough to quality for a warranty. A warranty of what?

By: bd_

bd_ — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:55:21 +0000

Clause 4 seems quite dangerous to me – it essentially makes the license an NDA. Not fun. I for one wouldn’t touch any software with this licence with a ten-foot pole.