I have epicly trolled by myself by being bad at writing licenses (aka this isn't a legally viable license)

[TechnologyClassroom]

I get that this is a meme license, but I want to point out that the software license cannot legally control the output of a program. See the question "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? (#GPLOutput)" from the GPL FAQ.

The CC-BY-SA-4.0 license should cover everything else that is mentioned in this license.

[TechnologyClassroom]

I do agree that NFTs are bad in general.

[ThatOneCalculator]

If anything this license is meant to act as a "legal scare", people dumb enough to do NFTs won't know the intricacies of copyright law.

[TechnologyClassroom]

Having a goal of spreading FUD about copyright law through a software license is probably not a good strategy.

[ThatOneCalculator]

What would you suggest instead, then?

[ddevault]

I also noticed this problem and filed to have a package removed from Alpine Linux on the basis that this is a non-free license. I hate NFTs with a passion, but software licenses is not the appropriate place to fight this battle.

[ddevault]

Oh: the closed source clause is problematic, too. There's no definition of "closed source" given, and licenses which aim to be viral have to take a different approach (see the GPL or MPL). License writing is not the domain of amateurs.

[ThatOneCalculator]

I also noticed this problem and filed to have a package removed from Alpine Linux on the basis that this is a non-free license. I hate NFTs with a passion, but software licenses is not the appropriate place to fight this battle.

Which package?

[ddevault]

https://github.com/MrGlockenspiel/activate-linux

https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/13818

[ThatOneCalculator]

Honestly I might retire this license and clarify it's a joke, I only really wrote it for one repo people used to make NFTs against my will

[TechnologyClassroom]

What would you suggest instead, then?

I would point people to use CC-BY-SA-4.0 instead as it is free culture and copyleft license that covers all of the topics addressed by this license that can be enforced. GPL-3.0-or-later or AGPL-3.0-or-later could also be recommended as they are the closest copyleft software licenses that only exclude the attribution portion and are battle tested through the courts. I would move anti-NFT writings to a blog or something that is not in a license.

Retiring the license would probably be a good idea as it is nonfree in its current form and would take a considerable amount of work to become a legally enforceable license. Relevant xkcd.

[ThatOneCalculator]

Got it. Also, thoughts on the MPL 2?

[ddevault]

MPL 2.0 is a great license, I use it for several projects.

[TechnologyClassroom]

MPL-2.0 is a free license compatible with GPL. It is fine, but I prefer AGPL-3.0-or-later for code and CC-BY-SA-4.0 for everything else.

[ThatOneCalculator]

See 2c75a13

[ddevault]

Thanks!

[MrGlockenspiel]

Did I actually singlehandedly cause this lmao

[ThatOneCalculator]

Yea :((

I just wanted funny license for me and friends and it turned into a legal/moral thingy I'm too dumb and gay for all this

[ThatOneCalculator]

Asuka.tells.Shinji.about.Subway.Sandwiches.mp4

[MrGlockenspiel]

the license was simply too based for us mortals

[ThatOneCalculator]

I would also like to add this

[Jocadbz]

Oh no. i need to change LICENSE on my repos now :(

feelsbadman

[ThatOneCalculator]

Oh no. i need to change LICENSE on my repos now :(

feelsbadman

If it's a smaller repo (like under 100 stars ish) I really wouldn't worry too much. Technically viable, even if it's not entirely legally defendable.