imported>Gamapamani: fix unpaired tags

2025-11-09T03:04:56Z

fix unpaired tags

New page

{{Short description|Software to be used without restrictions}}
'''License-free software''' is [[computer software]] that is not explicitly in the [[public domain]], but the authors appear to intend free use, modification, distribution and distribution of the modified software, similar to the freedoms defined for [[free software]].

== Examples ==

Examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by [[Daniel J. Bernstein]], such as [[qmail]], [[djbdns]], [[daemontools]], and [[ucspi-tcp]]. Bernstein held the copyright and distributed these works without license until 2007.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040622043020/http://qmail.org/not-open-source.html "qmail is not open source"] - an article published by Russell Nelson, OSI board member in 2004</ref> From December 28, 2007, onwards, he started placing his software in the [[public domain]] with an explicit [[waiver]] statement.<ref>{{cite web
|year=2007
|url=http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
|title=Frequently asked questions from distributors
|accessdate=2008-01-18
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|year=2007
|url=http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
|title=Information for distributors
|accessdate=2008-01-18
}}</ref>

Additionally, small [[Scripting language|script]]s are frequently released without specifying a license. For example, the website Userscripts.org hosts more than 52,000 [[Greasemonkey]] user scripts,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://userscripts.org/scripts
|title=Scripts — Userscripts.org
|accessdate=2010-06-29
|url-status=dead
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506055146/http://userscripts.org/scripts
|archivedate=May 6, 2014
}}</ref> the majority of which have no specified license.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} Similarly, GitHub reported in 2015 that 85% of the projects it hosts are unlicensed.<ref>[http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-github-kids-still-dont-care-about-open-source/ the-github-kids-still-dont-care-about-open-source] on techrepublic.com</ref>

== Rights for users ==

On his ''Software users' rights'' web page, Bernstein explains his belief that under the terms of copyright law itself software users are always allowed to modify software for their personal use, regardless of [[Software license agreement|license agreements]]. He says ''"If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about."''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html |title=Software user's rights |last=Bernstein |first=D.J. |authorlink=Daniel J. Bernstein |work=yp.to}}</ref>

He also says that software users are allowed to back up, compile, and run the software that they possess.

He further says that ''"since it's not [[copyright infringement]] for you to apply a [[patch (computing)|patch]], it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch,"'' noting the case of ''[[Galoob v. Nintendo]]'' as precedent. Thus modified versions of license-free software can legally be distributed in [[source code]] form in whatever way that the original can, by distributing a [[patch (computing)|patch]] alongside it.

== Reception and discussion ==

Advocates of license-free software, such as Bernstein, argue that [[software license]]s are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software, and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. Though having some restrictions, these licenses allow certain actions that are disallowed by copyright laws in some jurisdictions. If a license tries to restrict an action allowed by a copyright system, by Bernstein's argument those restrictions can be ignored. In fact, Bernstein's "non-license" of verbatim retransmission of source code is very similar in nature.

Similar positions on licenses are voiced by [[Free culture movement|Free culture]] activist [[Nina Paley]] in 2010.<ref>[http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/11/06/driving-without-a-license/ Driving Without a License?] on ninapaley.com ''"I can’t work up enthusiasm for any license today."'' (2010)</ref>

In 2013 [[Luis Villa]] argued similarly negative about the license usage of "open source", when the small number projects licensed on [[GitHub]] were noticed, identifying a "[[Post Open Source]] movement against the (license) [[permission culture]]".<ref>[http://lu.is/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/ taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/] on lu.is (2013)</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Anti-copyright notice]]
* [[Post Open Source]]
* [[Public domain software]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 17 USC 117]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080206094355/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html FSF's (erstwhile) categorisation of the qmail licence as "non-free"] (archive.org's snapshot)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20040622043020/http://qmail.org/not-open-source.html "qmail is not open source"] - an article published by Russell Nelson, OSI board member in 2004, on end of 2007 it was changed to [https://web.archive.org/web/20071215021509/http://www.qmail.org/not-open-source.html "qmail is now open source"]

=== UK Legislation ===
*{{UK-LEG|path=ukpga/1988/48|title=Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988|type=ukpga}}
{{Software distribution}}

[[Category:Software licensing]]
[[Category:Open content]]

License-free software - Revision history

imported>Gamapamani: fix unpaired tags