Lexikos' default copyright license

Update 2012-07-29:
If assigning a work to the public domain isn't valid in your region, my scripts (as specified below) may be copied, modified and distributed as outlined by the Creative Commons CC0.

Update 2010-03-01:
I realised it's not really a copyright license anymore, but I'm keeping the title anyway.

Update 2010-02-15:
Unless explicitly marked otherwise, any original script I write and post or have written and posted in these forums may be considered public domain. If parts are derived from scripts written by others, those parts may be copyright their respective authors. I will attempt to identify such parts if they are present, typically with a name and/or URL.

In other words: use, modify, distribute, etc. my scripts however you like.

I've always felt that attaching explicit licenses detracts from my posts, so this thread is here to remove any doubt about how my scripts may be used, and to save me answering should someone ask. Since the zlib license is very close to my own views, I've used it as a base.

Obviously if I post a script which is not entirely my own work, the original author's terms also apply. (If I post such a script and don't mention the original author, feel free to berate me.)


Unless otherwise noted, the following license may be applied to any script I have posted or will post in Scripts & Functions:

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
[*:17p5ko30]The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.

[*:17p5ko30]Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.

This may also be applied to any script I have posted or will post in Ask for Help, except that restrictions 1 and 2 are optional.

I think that you should still link to this post from every script's page.
You can't suppose that everybody reads this forum, especially people that find your scripts by google.

Perhaps you could put a link to this thread in your sig. You could make it small and unobtrusive but still have every script link to your copyright license. Oh, and you wouldn't have to change every script so still very little work.

Putting it in a post is better.
Personally, I rarely read signatures...and never when I'm busy looking for a particular thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if some even used greasemonkey to remove sigs entirely. It's an easy modification of the script that removes images from them.

Putting it in a post is better.
Personally, I rarely read signatures...and never when I'm busy looking for a particular thing.

You misunderstood what I said. I suggested both. I said: "link to this thread in your sig."

I wouldn't be surprised if some even used greasemonkey to remove sigs entirely.

The problem is that the html doesn't differentiate between the "post" part and the "sig" part so there's no way to separate them to block just the sig.

I think adding a small, simple link to this thread in your sig would be a heck of a lot easier than m^2's suggestion to "link to this post from every script's page" because you can add it to your sig, and every post is changed all at once. Something simple like this:

My Default Copyright License

I mean, look at that number next to your nick. It's greater than 2000. And what percentage of those have code? Nested in some remote thread that hasn't been posted on in literally years.

Putting it in a post is better.
Personally, I rarely read signatures...and never when I'm busy looking for a particular thing.

You misunderstood what I said. I suggested both. I said: "link to this thread in your sig."

Both? You mean putting the link in each post and additionally in the sig?

I wouldn't be surprised if some even used greasemonkey to remove sigs entirely.

The problem is that the html doesn't differentiate between the "post" part and the "sig" part so there's no way to separate them to block just the sig.

No problem. "_________________" separates posts from signatures.

I think that you should still link to this post from every script's page.

I may do that, but at the moment I'm too lazy to go back and edit them all.

Perhaps you could put a link to this thread in your sig.

I considered that a while back. The problem is that I'd have to edit all of my existing posts to attach the signature. Also, it isn't really relevant unless I post code.

you can add it to your sig, and every post is changed all at once.

Unfortunately this isn't the case, since I've never posted with "Attach my signature" enabled - because I never had a signature.

I mean, look at that number next to your nick. It's greater than 2000.

If I search by author in Scripts & Functions, I get 149 matches - compared to 1043 in Ask for Help. I can then sort by Author, and fit all of the scripts I've posted in Scripts & Functions on one page. For other scripts, I won't bother.

Edit: Although it partly defeats the point of a default license, I've added links to many of my scripts in Scripts & Functions.
"Covered by Lexikos' default copyright license."

am i or are you missing something?
signatures are not a "per-post" thing. so you would not need to edit every post, unless you purposly unchecked "attach signature" on every post.
so the signature option would b the quickest/easiest way.

now that i re-read your post, it seems you did disable "attach signature"...

Perhaps you could put a link to this thread in your sig.

I considered that a while back. The problem is that I'd have to edit all of my existing posts to attach the signature. Also, it isn't really relevant unless I post code.

am i or are you missing something?

Yes.

signatures are not a "per-post" thing. so you would not need to edit every post, unless you purposly unchecked "attach signature" on every post.

I did not purposely uncheck "attach signature" because it wasn't there!! I never had a signature, therefore the option never appeared and it was never enabled.

Edit: I encountered this problem the last time I considered adding a signature - I ended up changing my nick to lexiKos temporarily instead.
_________________
That Lexicos, always stealing the credit for my work. :evil: