I'm tired of everything, I'll just use 0BSD
The most defeatist licencing decision ever - Published on 2026-07-21
I've been using EUPL-1.2 for my licence in all of the projects I have been making since at least a few months ago. It's a good, copyleft licence which I think in some ways beats the AGPL.1 In my ideal world, even capitalists, theives, and generally anything that doesn't know how to read a software licence respects my EUPL-1.2 and shares the changes they have made to my source code themselves. Do you see the problem in that sentence?
If you didn't, then I'll make it clearer. Anything that doesn't know how to read a software licence, will use my code in ways that will not respect the licence. Some of these violations are trivial to catch, some are challenging to the point where it's not even worth trying to fight back. Through this, I kind of realised that it's probably not even worth trying to protect source code, and will probably just end up making it as close to public domain as possible. I'll just focus on improving my own code in my own way, and if any LLM company responsible for hurting everything for it's own profit wants to steal it from me, I can't stop them from doing that for my own mental health and whatnot.
Honestly, I feel like it makes more sense to protect finished products, like proprietary binaries than it makes sense to protect source code, I'll raise my case on why.
Lets talk about media production for a second
Imagine this: I upload a song I created in something like LMMS and also upload the project files itself, including the samples, raw vocals and whatnot. I can publish all of those changes under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 and have some protection against my work. However, that still doesn't change that beings won't read the licence, and do whatever they want with it, even if it doesn't respect it. How can I protect myself? Filing a complaint which in many cases will lead to nowhere, and my work has been reclaimed by someone who spent 30 seconds changing the pitch of the samples.
This also applies in video production. Same licence, same conditions, people steal an asset of the video--imagine a body actor behind a green screen doing jumping jacks for example--and not give me anything back for it. Another complaint in the same exact hole. It's just so tiring.
However, once you have a finished product and you upload that, I think that it will be much harder for someone to rip off of said media without a lot of work mastering, editing, or doing enough work on their part to make it transformitive and still not credit me in the process. Given how lazy these beings are, I would honestly not think for a second that they probably won't even bother doing all of that, and half-respect to any being that even dares do that.
Moreover, if I used CC0 on any of my media projects, I would have much less headaches having to worry about someone messing with my work, because they are respecting the licence and the project files are public anyways.
How does this relate to binaries?
In the third paragraph about media, I talked about having a finished product which you are sharing with the world, made out of project files which you are keeping to yourself. If you replace finished product with a binary, and project files with source code, you get exactly my point. Sharing a binary to the world, while keeping the source code of said binary proprietary, makes it much harder for someone to just steal, change and redistribute.
I will note, this does not mean I like proprietary software. In fact, I honestly would much prefer using copyleft software over something proprietary like Google Chrome or Firefox (not true for the latter but it sounded funny in my head). I have no idea what the developers put in their code, it usually leads to greed and is just inherently elitist. However, the point is that it's much easier for proprietary software to be protected against people not respecting the licence.
Conclusion
By the time this post is up, I'll be mass migrating my open source stuff to 0BSD or CC0, and therefore making my stuff functionally public domain. It's literally the only way I won't damage my mental health in case some being decided to rip off my work, because they wouldn't be ripping it off in the first place. Less stress, more work. That's all I have to say.
Footnotes
- This was in fact false. I do not remember how I came to that conclusion, but I know that said conclusion is wrong. No aspects of the EUPL are stronger than the AGPL. (This footnote was added still during 2026-07-21, but later in the day) ↩