Examples Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J.

Bernstein, specifically qmail, djbdns, daemontools, and ucspi-tcp. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works, but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28, 2007.[1][2] Additionally, small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . For example, the website Userscripts.org hosts more than 52,000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts,[3] the majority of which have no specified license.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page, Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use, regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing to worry about."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. He says "I holder, you've been bamboozled the software, you have nothing

He also says that software users are allowed to back up, to compile, and to run the software that they possess. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch, it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch," not ing the case of Galoob v. Nintendo as precedent. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can, by distributing a patch alongside it. Although they come without a license document, it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. For example, on his various web pages giving information for distributors, Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages, in source code form, verbatim. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. However, there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed], given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses, arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements, although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s, whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software, such as Bernstein, argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software, and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. However, free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. Bernstein, specifically qmail, djbdns, daemontools, and ucspi-tcp. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works, but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28, 2007.[1][2] Additionally, small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license

org hosts more than 52. but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. daemontools. For example.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use. For example. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch. Although they come without a license document.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user. For example. the website Userscripts. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. in source code form. specifically qmail.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up.. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. by distributing a patch alongside it." not ing the case of Galoob v. djbdns. Bernstein explains his belief that under the terms of copyright law itself software users are always allowed to modify s oftware for their own personal use. such as Bernstein. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. He says "I .[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. on his various web pages giving information for distributors. As long as you're not distributing to worry about."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages. 2007. and to run the software that they possess. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. Nintendo as precedent. and ucspi-tcp.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements. to compile. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . the website Userscripts. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. However. regardless of license agreements.org hosts more than 52. verbatim. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. However.[1][2] Additionally. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. you've been bamboozled the software. He says "I holder. Bernstein.

small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . you've been bamboozled by Microsoft.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page.[3] the majority of which have no specified license."[4] He also says that software users are allowed to back up. such as Bernstein. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. djbdns. specifically qmail. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. For example. to compile. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. verbatim. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p . in source code form.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user.org hosts more than 52. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software.[1][2] Additionally.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. to compile. and ucspi-tcp. Although they come without a license document. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages. by distributing a patch alongside it. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. For example. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. the website Userscripts. and to run the software that they possess. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. and to run the software that they possess. 2007. on his various web pages giving information for distributors. However.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up. you have nothing to worry about. As long as you're not distributing the software. Nintendo as precedent. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch. daemontools. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. However. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. He says "I holder. As long as you're not distributing to worry about. you've been bamboozled the software. Bernstein.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed].f you think you need a license from the copyright holder." not ing the case of Galoob v.

there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. As long as you're not distributing to worry about. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. and ucspi-tcp. by distributing a patch alongside it. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. Nintendo as precedent. He says "I holder. by distributing a patch alongside it. For example. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. For example. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up. Bernstein granted permission for use . it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can." not ing the case of Galoob v.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . Nintendo as precedent. in source code form. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software. you've been bamboozled the software. the website Userscripts. For example. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]." not ing the case of Galoob v. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. such as Bernstein. 2007. on his various web pages giving information for distributors. However.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user. Although they come without a license document. on his various web pages giving information for distributors.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. and to run the software that they possess.org hosts more than 52.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use. specifically qmail. djbdns. daemontools. to compile. Bernstein.[1][2] Additionally. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. verbatim. However. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch.atch. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. Although they come without a license document.

As long as you're not distributing to worry about. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. daemontools. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. Given Bernstein's own oppositi . you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up.rs to redistribute the packages. to compile. specifically qmail.[1][2] Additionally.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. djbdns. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. and ucspi-tcp. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements. the website Userscripts. However. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. For example. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. verbatim. by distributing a patch alongside it. in source code form. in source code form.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. However. However."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. Bernstein. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. you've been bamboozled the software. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software." not ing the case of Galoob v. He says "I holder. and to run the software that they possess. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch. Nintendo as precedent. but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages.org hosts more than 52. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . on his various web pages giving information for distributors. verbatim. For example. such as Bernstein. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. 2007.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. Although they come without a license document.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software.

Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages. verbatim. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch. such as Bernstein.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]." not ing the case of Galoob v. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. Nintendo as precedent. you've been bamboozled the software. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. in source code form. 2007.org hosts more than 52. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . djbdns. daemontools. to compile. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements.on to software licenses. However. He says "I holder.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user. by distributing a patch alongside it. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software.[citation needed] Difficulties . but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. For example. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. the website Userscripts. For example. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force. Although they come without a license document. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. and to run the software that they possess. Bernstein. As long as you're not distributing to worry about. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. specifically qmail.[1][2] Additionally. on his various web pages giving information for distributors.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. and ucspi-tcp. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. However. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works.

Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. to compile. For example. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect." not ing the case of Galoob v. However. and to run the software that they possess. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. and ucspi-tcp. daemontools. and ucspi-tcp. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force.Advocates of license-free software. Bernstein. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. on his various web pages giving information for distributors. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch.org hosts more than 52. He says "I holder.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software.[3] the majority of which have no specified license. Bernstein. As long as you're not distributing to worry about. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. daemontools. For example. Although they come without a license document. in source code form. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. However. such as Bernstein.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. . but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. specifically qmail.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software.[1][2] Additionally. djbdns. the website Userscripts. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up. Nintendo as precedent. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license .[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. djbdns. verbatim. 2007. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use.[dubiou Well known examples of license-free software formerly included programs written by Daniel J. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. such as Bernstein. you've been bamboozled the software. by distributing a patch alongside it. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. However. specifically qmail. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages.

some Linux distributions used to classify qmail as "nonfree" because when distributors modified it. If a license tries to restrict an action allowed by a copyright system. verbatim. Thus modified versions of licen se-free software can legally be distributed in source code form in whatever way that the original can. However. argue that software licen ses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software. Although they come without a license document. The disagreement hampers the spread of license-free software. As long as you're not distributing to worry about. it can be argued[weasel words] th at such programs are legally bound by a license. arguments for the validity of Bernstein's web pages as licenses may also strengthen the case for the validity of "click wrap" end-user license agreements.org hosts more than 52. free and op en source licenses do not restrict the freedoms that license-free advocates want to protect. He further says that "since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a p atch. by Bern stein's argument those restrictions can be ignored.[citati on needed] For example. largely because th e free software and open source philosophies are far stronger influences. In fact.[1][2] Additionally. and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses.[dubious discuss] Though having some restrictions. given the transient and wholl y electronic nature of the license document. and to run the software that they possess.Bernstein previously held the copyright and distributed these works. you've been bamboozled the software. although this seems unlikely because the latter are contract s. in source code form. Bernstein granted permission for use rs to redistribute the packages. . by distributing a patch alongside it.[3] the majority of which have no specified license.[ citation needed] This contract variance makes sense: a difference remains in tha t Bernstein's license is purely permissive whereas most "click wrap" licenses fo rbid certain actions of the user. Nintendo as precedent.000 Greasemonkey u ser scripts. you have nothing He also says that software users are allowed to back up. Bernstein's "non-li cense" of verbatim retransmission of source code is very similar in nature. to compile." not ing the case of Galoob v. small scripts are frequently released without specifying a license . He says "I holder.[citation needed ] Rights for users On his Software users' rights web page. However. regardless of f you think you need a license from the copyright by Microsoft. on his various web pages giving information for distributors. Bernstein the terms of copyright law itself software users oftware for their own personal use. These concerns have been expressed[citation needed] for the same reasons about t he non-paper licenses of shrink wrapped software. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a copyright license[citation needed]. it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch. For example. 2007. whereas pure copyright licenses need never be seen by a user to be in force. but he plac ed them in the public domain on December 28. there is significant and long standing dispute in the communi ty as to its validity and weight[citation needed]. Given Bernstein's own oppositi on to software licenses. such as Bernstein. For example.[citation needed] Difficulties Advocates of license-free software."[4] explains his belief that under are always allowed to modify s license agreements. these licenses al low certain actions that are disallowed by copyright laws in some jurisdictions. the modified version could not be d istributed. the website Userscripts.