tl;drLegal VS The Unlicense

This site may help you understand what you can and can't do with many known licenses, here its page about MIT, it may help you even if one day you decide to release some of your code. Source: about 1 year ago

Here’s a great site that summarizes licenses: https://tldrlegal.com. Source: over 1 year ago

Https://tldrlegal.com/ this site is pretty handy to get a quick idea of them. Source: over 1 year ago

I recommend looking at https://tldrlegal.com/ for better explanations. As far as I know, all of them should be MC EULA compatible as long as you also follow those terms. Source: over 1 year ago

That's a fair enough stance. I'd recommend not taking any outside contributions until you are sure about the license, since it'll make it much harder to change the license if you do. Or maybe require all outside contributions to be licensed very permissively, like using the BSD license. Or you could use a CLA, but that's not something I'd recommend. Either way, licensing is hard :(. I can emphasise with the head... - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

It's theoretically helpful to at least put in a no-warranties clause. But sqlite as maybe the most popular public domain project worldwide doesn't (instead having a blessing). I mostly settled on the Unlicense https://unlicense.org/ over just saying 'public domain' or 'CC0' as a simple text blob to paste in, and in the event of a significant contribution from someone else, there's a simple text blurb to ask them... - Source: Hacker News / about 2 months ago

No, you're confused, because this is confusing: https://unlicense.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicense So if something is unlicensed (no license) you would be correct, but if something is unlicensed (unlicensed licence) you would be incorrect.. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

CC0[0] would be the obvious one; spicier and less legalese alternatives that nonetheless amount to about the same thing include the Unlicense[1] and the Do What the Fuck You Want License[2] [0] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ [1] https://unlicense.org/ with some philosophical discussion at https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free [2] http://www.wtfpl.net/. - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

Interesting, looks like the Open Source Initiative decided to pull their endorsement of CC0 over the same clause. Apparently OSI decided to approve Unilicense as a public-domain equivalent license. Source: over 1 year ago

So its licensed on github under the Unlicenced License which TL:DR means anyone can modify it and publish it for any reason. Besides, I don't think a single line of code from the original FT UI mod is in my FT UI mod. At that point if you still consider it stealing, I don't know what to tell it, it only changes a single byte of code. Source: over 1 year ago