The point is to ban other people from placing restrictions on the copying and re-using of your code.

Sorry, but not for me.

An earlier point that those who wish to reuse code will not because they have no authoritative information indicating that code is open source, is something I can agree with.

I'm absolutely understanding of the need for licensing, this is done for my employers or clients as a requirement.

At an earlier point in this thread, I got the impression that this was just random tool code which the OP wished to post, and should've realized that they are interested in licensing, otherwise they'd have not created this thread.

But, I have snippets of code, posted in blogs, or also scripts. I also have some very small, one to two file git repos which were valid code, example code, but absolutely nothing of any consequence.

Sorry, but couldn't be bothered to increase the size of those very old things, just to add a licensing statement.

Meanwhile, someone has already pointed out that it technically is licensed anyways.

So my earlier recommendation is not useful for this question/poll.

Most of the software & OS world I live in uses the GPL, so I use that too.
It's that simple for me.
I want to make sure that people can & cannot do the same with my code that I can & cannot do with their code.

BTW, there's also differences between GPL2 and GPL3

There is no "the MIT License". The term actually refers to different variants of a very free license. Whenever I have the choice, I mostly prefer the WTFPL. For more serious projects, my go-to choice is MIT-0.

Honestly, everything which I am allowed to license is work which I do in my free time, for fun, not for profit. Take my stuff, sell it for a billion US$, I don't care. Especially, I am not interested in imposing a multi-page set of "YOU MUST" rules onto whoever decides to use my free software, like the GPL would. So I won't.

Could you help me understand the difference between 'reciprocal' vs 'non-reciprocal' licenses? You list AGPL as reciprocal, but the FSF's license list only mentions two 'reciprocal' licenses, both of which they advise against because they are not free licenses. Am confused.

Other: No License.

I expect Turbocapitalist was using "reciprocal" to mean "copyleft", and "non-reciprocal" to mean "permissive".

I typically use CC0. It is GPL-compatible according to the FSF, but OSI decided to vote that a GPL-compatible public domain dedication wasn't "open," while approving what is essentially NASA's non-free license.

So that's what I think of "open source" licensing. I am not against the GPL, in fact I attribute Linux's (level of) success to it. Why else would Torvalds say that using it is one of the best decisions he ever made?

Even the FSF is alright with a public domain dedication for fewer than 300 lines. They recommend the GPL past that point. That doesn't mean I always use the GPL for large projects, but I would happily participate in one that used GPL, and it definitely makes plenty of sense to use it for projects you don't want hijacked. I'm not against the way BSD does things-- but, the outcome they want differs from the outcome the FSF wants. (And Linus, as well.)

The FSF is not entitled to decide about your licenses.

You're missing the point by a long shot. Not only did they invent these licenses, their job is to advocate when it's a good idea to use them.

Ethically speaking, your doctor is not entitled to decide about your treatment, either-- but if they don't tell you their best expert opinion, they aren't doing the job they get paid for.

Name one license which was invented by the FSF. Hint: Public domain is not one of those.

A doctor would recommend what fits you best. The FSF does not because it artificially limits your choices according to a rather narrow list. If a proprietary license fits your project best, the FSF will still never recommend that. If the CDDL fits your project best, the FSF won't either. And they (seemingly) don't even know the MIT-0.

So, unlike a doctor, the FSF makes ideologically-driven suggestions. I really wonder why anyone in technology pays them for their ideology at all.
When a developer develops anything, the person to choose the license is the developer.

I'm just going to ignore you for trolling. The answers to your questions are no mystery, they're well known-- and you're only here to argue and frankly, to mislead. Ciao.

1 members found this post helpful.

This is a great example of why using analogies for arguments is a bad idea. All that needs to be said is that the FSF publishes advice about which license to choose. You can take it or leave it.

2 members found this post helpful.

If analogies are not useful to an honest argument, examples can't be much more useful. The real problem is what to do when presented with a dishonest argument. Make your point, then walk away until someone honest shows up. It doesn't matter how perfect the rebuttal is, because facts and context don't matter more to a troll than analogies. You're going to get something ridiculous back no matter what.

The analogy was solid. The real problem was two distractions from the point-- first when we went from a point about the FSF to whether they have the right to advocate their own cause (that was the first venture into absurdity) and the second was missing the point again by talking about whether their cause was in a different class than doctors. Whether or not analogies are useful would be a third step beyond the point, but since it's not the same person doing it, maybe we should count it as the first?

I find it amazing that you derive this topic into personal attacks now that I named where you're wrong. One of the problems with FSF zealots is that they lack the confidence to actually participate in a conversation without being a bully when someone denies their holy cow.

The FSF has not invented one single license. Calling me names for stating this fact is childish and I will report your harassment right after pressing "Submit Reply". Ciao as well.

I agree.