Licence-free software is software that is Copyrighted but which is not accompanied by a software licence.

= Examples of Licence-Free Software =

The most well-known examples of licence-free software are various packages written by Daniel J. Bernstein (although other authors, such as William Baxter, have followed in his footsteps), notably qmail, djbdns, daemontools , and ucspi-tcp . These are all copyrighted and distributed by Bernstein. Bernstein writes on his page about [http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html software users rights], If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you ve been bamboozled by Microsoft. .

Although they do not come with a licence document, it can be argued that qmail, djbdns, et al. are not entirely licence-free in a legal sense. On his various web pages giving [http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html information for distributors], Bernstein grants permission for users to redistribute the packages, in source code form, verbatim. This permission granted by the copyright holder can be construed as a licence. However, there is significant and long standing dispute in the community as to its validity and weight, given the transient and wholly electronic nature of the licence document. (These same concerns have been expressed about the non-paper licences of Shrink wrap contract, and for the same reasons. Ironically, given Bernstein s own opposition to software licences, arguments to support the validity of the Bernstein web pages as licences also strengthen the case for the validity of click wrap software licence.)

= What users can do with Licence-Free Software =

On his page about [http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html software users rights] Bernstein explains his belief that under the terms of copyright law itself software users are always allowed to modify software for their own personal use, regardless of licence agreements. He says As long as you re not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about. .

He also says that software users are allowed to back up, to compile, and to run the software that they possess.

He further says that since it s not copyright infringement for you to apply a patch (computing), it s also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a patch, noting the Galoob v. Nintendo case as precedent. Thus modified versions of licence-free software can legally be distributed in source code form however the original can, by distributing a patch (computing) alongside it.

= Difficulties with Licence-Free Software =

The irony of the claim that people have been bamboozled by Microsoft into thinking that they need a licence is that by that token the . Indeed, the difference between the FSF s philosophy and the licence-free software philosophy can be paraphrased:

: Licence-free software: Copyright licences are bad. And you will be surprised how much copyright law, by itself, allows, without need for licences . Avoid copyright licences. : FSF: Copyright licences are bad. But the way that the copyright system is currently structured requires that we use them to achieve our goals. So use GNU General Public License.

This philosophical disagreement causes problems for Licence-Free Software, not least because the because they are thus classified under their rules as non-free , and because modifications that the distributors would make to it are not distributable in pre-compiled form, but only in source form.

Another major difficulty with licence-free software is that base copyright law is not uniform, particularly with regard to computer programs. One purpose of open source and free software packages actually having software licences is the levelling of the playing field across jurisdictions. Bernstein s explanation of software users rights is based upon United States copyright law. The copyright law of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, is subtly different with respect to computer programs, and more restrictive. The software licences of open source and free software packages explicitly waive the rights that statute law in some countries may reserve to copyright holders, which U.S. law does not.

= External links =