Ah, okay, I wasn't familiar with Cape Verde's location, so my brain didn't even process that part.

Oooooh, I love it. The haunted data center. Or maybe like Amazon warehouses too?

Yes it totally i-

I put my wifi router in a faraday cage to stop the viruses. I'll let everyone know how it g-

AUR is something related only to Arch Linux. Bazzite is not related to Arch, so you're good.

NPM is the Node Package Manager. Unless you're doing something like installing Node JS stuff then you don't need to worry about this. I feel fairly confident that this is one of those things where you'd know if you were using it.

You're all good. This sort of became a topic that really caught my mind a few years ago. I was really confused why CC0 wasn't considered suitable for FLOSS projects. I even found the mailing list thread where it was discussed. The next logical question becomes "okay, well, if CC0 isn't suitable, and because some jurisdictions don't allow someone to decide to put something in the public domain, are there any FSF/OSI approved public domain declarations with permissive fall back licenses?" And the answer is, well, just the Unlicense.

I think the EU doesn't allow people putting things in the public domain. I forget which jurisdictions don't, but when I looked into it last, I remember I came to the conclusion that it was enough of a problem that just making a public domain declaration alone didn't seem enough.

It's sort of the best of a bad situation for folks who want to put things into the public domain but still let everyone use it. I really dislike crayon licenses as a matter of principle. (I wouldn't want lawyers making code, so I don't want programmers making licenses.) And yet, it's the only one that both FSF and OSI approve, which I also think is pretty important for choosing a license.

My biggest gripe with the Unlicense though is the name. It's so close to the word "unlicensed" which is totally the opposite. I get their logic for the name, but still, using something without a license (unlicensed) is basically the entirely opposite thing. It's a term that sounds almost the same as something illegal but means something extremely legal.

You're getting it backwards. If you hate the idea of patents, then you should use something like Apache which protects people from patent holders, as opposed to CC0 which protects the parent holders. (Not that anyone with a patent would likely contribute to your script and sue people for using their patent.) Whether or not you philosophically agree that patents should exist, they do exist and CC0's fall back license says:

No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.

Compare that to Apache which says this:

Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

CC0 protect's the creator's patent rights. Apache protects others from patent litigation.

Also, I'd strongly avoid joke licenses. At that point, why use a license at all? Just use the default protections ensured by copyright. You don't need to give a license your work if you don't want people to be able to use it. If you want people to be able to use your work, you're not actually stopping them if you don't include a license. You're only stopping them from doing it illegally. If you aren't interested in pursuing legal action against people using your stuff, you don't actually need to provide a license. The only benefit you get is encouraging more people to use it (generally more corporate minded folks).

Hey OP, I'd suggest not using CC0 for code. The only "public domain declaration with permissive fallback license" that FSF and OSI approve is the Unlicense. https://unlicense.org/ I hate the name. It's a crayon license (a license not made by lawyers). But it's still actually approved by FSF and OSI unlike CC0.

The reason CC0 is not approved is because it explicitly does not grant patent rights. Compare that to permissive licenses like Apache (which explicitly does) and MIT (which implicitly does). Because CC0 says it doesn't (as opposed to not saying it does, like MIT) that makes it awful for software.

My advice is to just use extremely permissive and simple licences if you really want something in the public domain. The most widely used is MIT.

You're saying you made the straw man?

You keep trying to make this into something it's not. All I have been saying is that the data is not worth $14k. You seem to want to make it about me being okay with them having access to my data. I never said that.

"I can't quit my job because I'll lose my ~~health insurance~~ AI access."

Not $14k lmao