> So, you accept potential legal hassle for you and the users of your software in order to "protest against the current copyright laws"?
Yes.
> Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance?
Because that does not clarify my legal stance at all. My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. I feel like adding a license (even a permissive one) undermines this very idea.
The only people who insist on a license are exactly the people that this form of protest is meant to oppose.
>> My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code.
Is this an aspirational stance?
Because at the moment that's not what the law says (in any country I know of) and simple licenses like the MIT are probably the easiest way to legally say that you're allowing any use the recipient likes.
Actually something with strong copyleft semantics might actually be more appropriate than MIT in this case (if we're already willing to legitimize the copyright system by having a license, which is necessary).
If the argument is that everyone should be free to use whatever code however they want, then MIT lets delivers on the "however", but not the "whatever". GPL slightly limits the "however", but delivers on some of the "whatever" due to its viral nature.
Yes.
> Exactly. So why not just add a brief MIT license [1] to your code, painlessly clarifying your legal stance?
Because that does not clarify my legal stance at all. My legal stance is that code does/can/should not have a license and that no license is necessary to use any code. I feel like adding a license (even a permissive one) undermines this very idea.
The only people who insist on a license are exactly the people that this form of protest is meant to oppose.