# Me, The Software and The Domain

TL;DR I hate the intellectual property and the public domain rocks

So, let me get this straight: I do not like lawyers, courts, or especially the government. Nor do I like restricting others in what they can do. However, little devilish gremlins have devised what they call "copyright". Right...

But I do not like that. Why would I restrict what a person can do? Why would I disallow someone from just getting the code and modifying it, distributing it? I made the software, for the others, and I'd restrict it so that you can only do some things with it?

I don't like it. I don't like copyleft either.

Traditionally, I use(d) permissive licenses for software. Most often I'd license them to a BSD-like license, or MIT, or ISC. However, they also restrict you in some ways. Either way they're copyright. They restrict you, even if not by much.

That is why I decided to dedicate all my software, past or present, to the public domain.

I do not want to weigh on my shoulders a cross of restriction. I wish others to use my software as they see fit. If they mention me, that is real nice, but they should not need to. After all, this is not officially mine, anymore or ever.

But, then anyway, the act of putting something into the public domain is needlessly lawyery, as everything is copyrighted to full extent by default. So, I had to choose a waiver. Thus, I just chose The Unlicense. A sane, pleasant and workable (un)license and public domain waiver.

Although, of course, there are other great choices: In the past, I'd (briefly) license some projects as WTFPL. One project I licensed under the 0BSD license, too, and some texts under CC0. As such, you can clearly see I always preffered the public-domain-like licenses. They all have strengths, but as my unified endeavour, I wanted to focus on only one license, and that was the Unlicense.

Of course, you'd probably not want to have big stuff like an OS under the public domain (although that does not mean that Terry did not do exactly that, and many others did). Maybe hobbyist operating systems - sure, but going on a scale like Windows or Linux, it could be negative. Still, I'd dedicate any OS I'd do to the public domain anyway.

Maybe this makes little sense to someone. I mean, relicensing, just because it was not public domain? After all, most of my repositories had _very_ permissive licenses in them. That is to say, it was already almost public domain.
Yet, I wanted to grant the user and the community all the fundamental rights. Not just the illusion of all rights.

Did this post make sense? Gladly not. But it does not need to. After all, what difference does it make, to humanity as a whole, when one person keeps talking about nothing at all?

### Some fine-grained links
=> https://unlicense.org/
=> https://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing
=> https://opensource.org/license/unlicense
=> https://www.wtfpl.net/
=> https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/
=> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain
=> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
=> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unlicense