License-free software iscomputer software that is not explicitly in thepublic domain, but the authors appear to intend free use, modification, distribution and distribution of the modified software, similar to the freedoms defined forfree software.
Examples of license-free software formerly included programs written byDaniel J. Bernstein, such asqmail,djbdns,daemontools, anducspi-tcp. Bernstein held the copyright and distributed these works without license until 2007.[1] From December 28, 2007, onwards, he started placing his software in thepublic domain with an explicitwaiver statement.[2][3]
Additionally, smallscripts are frequently released without specifying a license. For example, the website Userscripts.org hosts more than 52,000Greasemonkey user scripts,[4] the majority of which have no specified license.[citation needed] Similarly, GitHub reported in 2015 that 85% of the projects it hosts are unlicensed.[5]
On hisSoftware users' rights web page, Bernstein explains his belief that under the terms of copyright law itself software users are always allowed to modify software for their personal use, regardless oflicense agreements. He says"If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about."[6]
He also says that software users are allowed to back up, compile, and run the software that they possess.
He further says that"since it's notcopyright infringement for you to apply apatch, it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch," noting the case ofGaloob v. Nintendo as precedent. Thus modified versions of license-free software can legally be distributed insource code form in whatever way that the original can, by distributing apatch alongside it.
Advocates of license-free software, such as Bernstein, argue thatsoftware licenses are harmful because they restrict the freedom to use software, and copyright law provides enough freedom without the need for licenses. Though having some restrictions, these licenses allow certain actions that are disallowed by copyright laws in some jurisdictions. If a license tries to restrict an action allowed by a copyright system, by Bernstein's argument those restrictions can be ignored. In fact, Bernstein's "non-license" of verbatim retransmission of source code is very similar in nature.
Similar positions on licenses are voiced byFree culture activistNina Paley in 2010.[7]
In 2013Luis Villa argued similarly negative about the license usage of "open source", when the small number projects licensed onGitHub were noticed, identifying a "Post Open Source movement against the (license)permission culture".[8]