Choose the GPL instead of a "no attribution" license for your next program

Just because a license is free does not mean it serves the goals of the free software movement well. With no attribution (NA) licenses, things can get really bad. NA licenses are simple, non-copyleft free software licenses, compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). But they do not require preserving copyright and license notices. Using these licenses leads to confusion, liability risk, and taking freedom away from users.

When there is no copyright notice, you are not able to identify who has given permission to use the software. Consequently, it becomes significantly harder to determine if the license was granted by an authorized person. Users may also think that, without a license notice, they have received a nonfree program. Additionally, while NA licenses do not contain a requirement to preserve the copyright and license notices, that doesn't actually mean these notices can be removed. In some jurisdictions, if not most, removing copyright-related information may actually constitute copyright infringement.

While NA licenses are still free software licenses, even if you preserve the notices anyone who receives the program from you might remove them. Instead of advancing the goals of the free software movement, NA licenses have a saddening antisocial effect. If the notice is removed from a program under this kind of license, it in effect becomes nonfree to anyone who receives the program after. Such users are left on their own to find the source code and confirm freedom from the original distributors. To avoid this major risk, we recommend that you seek differently licensed free software programs that do the same job when possible.

Fortunately, NA licenses have not gained momentum, especially in comparison to the much more protective and popular GNU licenses. Nevertheless, in the past fifteen years or so, we have observed more and more attempts to prevent users from being able to to run, study, modify, copy, distribute, and improve the software. For example, there has been an increasing number of "tivoized" devices (hardware which renders free software nonfree in practice), users getting tricked into using Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, and projects refusing to accept copylefted code. Releasing programs under non-copyleft licenses, including NA, has contributed to these concerning trends.

The GNU GPL is the best copyleft protection against threats to freedom.

The FSF believes that the default choice for releasing programs as free software should be the GPLv3 or later, or, for programs designed to interact over the network, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 or later. If you are a developer looking for a license for your own program, please consider the following: copyleft licenses are designed to ensure that the four freedoms are granted and protect the program against turning nonfree. Non-copyleft free licenses grant these freedoms, too, but the license does not protect against them being taken away. NA licenses go one step further: when notices are not there, users get a risk of liability instead of the four freedoms. NA licenses just make it easier for those who want to take user freedoms away. Please do not be tempted by the apparent simplicity of NA licenses, and preferably release your program under a strong copyleft license instead.

While the GNU GPL is the best way to protect user freedom, ensuring that violators comply with the license involves enforcement, and compliance is oftentimes a long process that requires significant resources. This is due to the fact that copyleft is based on the law, and enforcement of licenses generally requires legal involvement. There are, however, measures that can be taken to make freedom-protecting enforcement easier, including:

• Releasing programs using (A)GPLv3-or-later notices, which future-proofs them;
  
• Assigning copyrights to an organization devoted to protecting software freedom (such as the FSF which accepts assignments for programs in the GNU Project);
  
• Supporting copyright holders like the FSF in pursuing violations, and using any legal mechanism available for enforcing copyleft to non-copyright holders, preferably following the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement.
  

We cannot go back in time and release programs currently licensed under NA with a better free software license: what's done is done. But we can make the choice to say no to NA licenses starting now. By avoiding NA licenses, we avoid confusion, liability risk, and antisocial effects. The best you can do now to choose freedom today and long into the future is to use programs released under strong copyleft licenses!

We encourage you to read the FSF's detailed evaluation of two NA licenses: the Zero BSD License and No-Attribution Expat License.

"GPLv3 Logo" by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. This image is dedicated to the public domain under CC0.