[01:34:17] <wm-bb>	 <mlazowik> Nikki (obligatory IANAL) (un)fortunately copyright is implied, and complicated, there is no trivial way to say “I don’t care”. Of course there are things like WTFPL, but the problem with law is that it’s at the same time strict and loose, sometimes you have to use specific wording to get what you want, explicitly cover things that are “enabled” by default etc., but even then you never have guarantee
[01:34:18] <wm-bb>	 <mlazowik> A lot of the licensing schemes/situations have never been tested in court. Things differ between countries. Even the “tested in court” phrase does not make sense everywhere – there are no precedents in civil law (eg most of europe)
[12:07:50] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> Well, most of civil law recognises licenses as private law contracts (see Italy), therefore they're valid by law
[12:08:24] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> But yeah, in order to be 100% that people will follow your intentions, you have to be precise yet nebulous
[12:09:44] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> This is why is always preferable to rely on licenses such as Apache, GPL, CC and so on - because they've been tested in court
[12:10:50] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> Unfortunately this also means you cannot be 100% free in deciding the single clauses, but IMHO is a valid compromise to avoid far worse situations, such as people taking all of your work without notice
[18:57:12] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> Sorry I just saw this, and wanted to share it here - also to get a laugh out of a terribly boring subject such as licensing :)
[18:57:13] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/4ef955fc/file_10022.jpg
[22:27:03] <vrandecic>	 Final newsletter of the year: Licensing discussion, and closing the year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2021-12-21