It's hard to imagine a reason for it being kept... proprietary?
A lot of people want to slap licenses on things without really thinking about what the license will do (or prevent), in practice.
I like the author's note about the license: "As we do not believe in imaginary property, this package belongs to the public domain."
I think it's much more common to see a Creative Commons license on this sort of thing.
alt Hacker News
A lot of people want to slap licenses on things without really thinking about what the license will do (or prevent), in practice.
I like the author's note about the license: "As we do not believe in imaginary property, this package belongs to the public domain."
I think it's much more common to see a Creative Commons license on this sort of thing.