Godot should use the 'Unlicense' or WTFPL license instead of the MIT license

Question

Unlicense or WTFPL license is more permissive and will make Godot even more free (as in freedom) and open source, so Godot should stick to Unlicense or WTFPL.

Off course I am not suggesting that people should not give credits to Godot. I personally would give credits regardless of what license it uses and I don't encourage anyone to be a dick about it and not give credits to other hard working people.

What I am trying to suggest is that when you download the software, the copy that you downloaded should be yours right? Placing any kinds of restrictions gives a sense of that you don't own anything.

If you disagree with me please kindly let me know instead of marking me down.

Answer 1

Hello,

Godot authors want to give the permission to people to use their property with the most freedom as possible ; they don't want to give away ownership or authorship of their work.

So your suggestion is not really relevant I believe.

Regards,
Maxime

Comments

But by placing the restrictions, this actually harms the freedom in the software.

Unlicense however makes the software truly Free (as in freedom) and Open Source.

---

Maybe, but still my point is valid : they don't want to give away their rights to their property (which is the main point of "Unlicense".)

But, what is that you would like to do with Godot that is not allowed with the MIT license ? Or is your suggestion purely rhetorical ?

---

I am not at all saying that we should not give credits to Godot, I hope that you understand.

You know how when you download a software that claims it is FOSS, basically when you download it onto your PC, you should have a feeling of that you own the copy of that software. Placing ANY kinds of restrictions kinda gives off that feeling that you don't at all own the copy of the software when you download it to your PC.

It might just be me but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Answer 2

The ONLY thing the MIT asks is for the credits of the authors to be maintained. WHY would you want that to be removed?
That's literally it. Are you saying you REFUSE to give proper credits? Because that's a dick move, and a big one at it.

Comments

Bro I am not saying that, if I made my own version, doesn't matter if it was legally required or not I would still give credits, you are not understanding what i am trying to say.

I am trying to say that to make it 100% Free (as in freedom) and Open Source, to switch to Unlicense.

---

And I'm saying it's already 100% free. If free as in freedom allows you to steal someone else's work and say it's your own then they're better off without it. You can do everything you want already, just give the damn credits.

---

I am not at all saying that we should not give credits to Godot, I hope that you understand.

You know how when you download a software that claims it is FOSS, basically when you download it onto your PC, you should have a feeling of that you own the copy of that software. Placing ANY kinds of restrictions kinda gives off that feeling that you don't at all own the copy of the software when you download it to your PC.

It might just be me but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

---

Yeah I'm not saying you would, I'm saying it would be possible if they did switch.
You have to understand you already own Godot, because it's open source. I can understand when someone tries to make a paid software go open but this is ridiculous, you're trying to make an already open and VERY permissive software abandon the only thing there is to profit from it; the slight marketing to the authors.

---

Look I really want to have a peaceful conversation, not an argument, I really am not trying to piss people off I just want to understand better, that is all.

So when you say you own Godot, do you own it 100% (I don't mean you are the original creators of the engine)?