The General Pirate License
I have come across many situations where I wanted to share an idea but never wanted the idea to be attributed to me, mainly because the original idea never came from me and also because I did not know who the original idea came from.
There are some other instances where I want to share some source code which is almost working, but may contain bugs and untested edge conditions that can produce undocumented results (if at all there is any documentation). I want people to use the source code for solving their problems, but in most of the cases they may have to modify the code to fit their particular problem. I don’t want to take the blame if anything goes wrong, and I don’t ever want to support the source code, other than in the cases where I really want to.
I hereby propose a new license to help you in cases like these to promote sharing of your content in the best possible way – by allowing others to pirate it. This license should be used if you want your ideas or work to be shared and modified freely, but you don’t want to maintain or support the original ideas unless you really wish to do so.
(Edited to remove unwanted clauses. Thanks Scott)
The General Pirate license (GPiL)
1. This work may be copied as many times as you wish, modified in any way you want and published in any medium you like, provided you adhere to all the seven rules in this license.
2. You will not attribute the modified version of the work/product to the original author.
3. Once you modify the work, you should clearly mention the work as yours and you will be responsible for supporting and maintaining the work (if required).
4. You will not disclose the identity of the original author (i.e. your source) without the written permission from that person.5. You will publish your modified version of this work under this same license (i.e. the General Pirate License).
6. All uses of this work will be at your own risk. The original author is liable to give you support for this work unless (a) You modified any part of this work/product (b) They do not wish to do so.
7. The source where you obtained this work from may or may not be the real original author of this work, but that is not the point here. The real point is the work itself, not the author.
There is a reason why all works under GPiL (General Pirate License) should continue to be under GPiL (clause 5). Any project under GPiL is supposed to be free to be modified and copied at will. According to the above rules, it is perfectly legal even to sell any intellectual property guarded by the GPiL. In essence GPiL allows you to do whatever you want with the IP – copy, modify, share, sell etc. The only restrictions that apply are the seven rules of GPiL. Clause 5 ensures that even if somebody is making profit from an IP, they have to share their version under GPiL. This is how the basic spirit of GPiL is carried forward.
That’s all. Let me know if any amendments can be made to this license to make it more piratical.
Now spread the word mate, and get sailin’. Arrrr!
« « Geocities won’t be missed | Get cached images from your visitors » »
Awesome, I too came across the same…
[...] Rt @johl: The General Pirate license: http://www.diovo.com/2009/11/the-general-pirate-license/ [...]
Clause 4 seems quite dangerous to me – it essentially makes the license an NDA. Not fun. I for one wouldn’t touch any software with this licence with a ten-foot pole.
I think less clauses would make it more “piratical.”
Are you relinquishing responsibility and/or authorship? For example, as a contract, the non-disclosure clause seems difficult to enforce.
Really, it’s missing a guiding manifesto. I recommend your closing sentence:
Which implies the sufficient and necessary clauses are #2 (no-attribution), an edited #6 (no-warranty) and #5 (viral).
If you “want” to offer a warranty, that can be agreed upon in a separate contract. Stating “if you want” isn’t enough to quality for a warranty. A warranty of what?
bd_, Scott,
Thanks for the suggestions. I guess you are right about removing some clauses.
I have updated the post.
[...] The General Pirate license | Diovo – [...]
Do you really need a license for what is essentially a “no license” license
I’m not sure what value this license actually has. Under the GPL, you can choose to not to include contact information, and can even register the copyright on a work anonymously or using a pseudonym. Section 7 allows you to restrict people from misrepresenting the origin of a modified version, and allows you to require that modified versions be marked in such a way as to show that they are different. You can also restrict the use of author names in advertising material. In addition, the GPL is a widely used license, that has an actually effective disclaimer of liability. It would be unwise to distribute software without an effective disclaimer.
Also, even if the word ‘pirate’ is problematic when referring to someone who is infringing, if you give permission to someone to use a work, what does that have to do with the notion of copyright ‘piracy’?
Fantastic idea! And it’s got a pirate theme.
Although this word may be problematic because it connotes software “piracy” – I don’t think it applies in this case. The whole point of a licence is to follow the guidelines and so anyone under the licence should be well aware of the context of the use of “pirate”.