A compendium of absurd, funny, and downright bad licenses. A table of contents is provided here with titles and a summary of what the license does. Sources, when available, are provided in the descriptions. Also, don't take this seriously.
UNOFFICIAL LEGAL ADVICE: Don't use these. Like, ever.
-
A license that allows you to copy, modify, or distribute the source code or compiled binaries, but doesn't let you run the program.
-
Non-White-Heterosexual-Male License
A license that lets anyone who isn't a white heterosexual male do whatever they want. Otherwise you have to follow the rules. Source
-
Transfers exclusive ownership of the entire project to whoever committed the last change.
-
A license that releases the source code into the public domain, but politely asks you to not do mean things with it. Source
-
DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE
Let's you do whatever you want so long as you aren't a dick. Gives several examples of dickish behavior including "modifying the original work to contain harmful content" without specifying what "harmful" means. Source
-
Protected Free To Use Software License
A truly bizarre "open-source" license with a litany of baffling restrictions, like not allowing anyone to redistribute binaries, ever, for any reason (except on github, I guess).
-
420 blaze it ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
-
An MIT-style license with a morality clause stating "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." Of course, Good and Evil are subjective, so this is legally unenforceable at best, and may or may not allow the author to sue you for any reason. Source
-
Another MIT-style ethos license, this time discouraging military use. Source
-
Modification of the source code is only allowed if your competitive rank in Overwatch is higher than the maintainer's.
-
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. Source
-
Based on the WTFPL, with an additional condition that you "APPRECIATE CIRNO AS THE STRONGEST IN GENSOKYO." Source Discussion
-
An antiquated license originally in Japanese with bizarre requirements and vague wording.
-
A license intended for minecraft mods, which, among other things, requires the end-user to own a legal copy of Minecraft. Should not be used on things that aren't minecraft mods (for that matter, probably shouldn't be used at all).
-
Anyone But Richard Stallman License
Anyone can do anything they want with the software, except Richard Stallman, who cannot use or redistribute it in any way. Source
-
You can only use the software if you properly document your public API. No definition for "negligent" documentation is provided. Source
-
This license requires you commit criminal acts to use the code.
-
A license that claims anyone using the software can't use it for "bad" purposes, and then provides a very questionable list of said "bad" things, which includes "gambling", "nuclear energy", "burning down forests" or "lobbying against peace". Despite providing a clear definition of what "burning down forests" means, no other definitions are provided. Source
-
You have to be gay and do crimes to use this software. Source
-
Using this software requires giving your first child to the author so that they can "immolate it to the devil". Source
-
A joke license created for the 2009 April Fool's day PEP (Python Enhancement Proposal). Source
-
A license that demands religious "purity" and requires the usage to be "good" as defined by the "full 66 books of the Holy Bible". Source
-
A license that lets anyone do whatever they want, provided they never contact the author about anything covered by the license. Source
-
A license that only allows you to use the program for nefarious ends, which it provides some helpful examples of.
-
The "Anyone But Some Assholes" license
A license that disallows groups of people the particular author doesn't like from using or redistributing the program.
-
THE "LITTLE SUS DISTRO" (LSD) LICENSE, VERSION 1
A BSD-style parody license based on the Original 4-clause BSD License with a terrible acronym. The previous variation of the license used the "Software must be used for Good and not Evil" clause from the JSON License, and a non-commercial clause. Prevously known as
THE "I AM BASED AND NOT SUSSY" LICENSEand theTHE "Sussy Baka" LICENSE, VERSION 1. Source -
A two-tiered license which allows only non-commercial and commercial use respectively, but "excluding those relating to or containing non-fungible tokens ("NFT") or blockchain-related projects" in either tier, which makes no legal sense. Git uses a merkle-tree, is that blockchain? Does blockchain only refer to proof-of-work algorithms? What about proof-of-stake? Are furry adoptables NFTs? Without legal clarification this license could be used to sue basically anyone. Source
-
An MIT derivative license the contradicts it's own "no restrictions" clause by saying that if you modify one of two specific source files, you are no longer eligible to use any future contributions to the repository. It is unclear how this would legally work in situations where people have forked the original repository.
-
An MIT derivative license that forbids promotion of "any characters from the anime Gabriel Dropout in any way except Satania". Source
-
The You Only Live Once so do What The Fuck you want Public License with Specified EXceptions
A WTFPL derivation license which combines aspects of WTFPL, YOLO, THE STRONGEST PUBLIC LICENSE, and a clause saying one guy the author really hates is not allowed to use the software at all. Source
-
For Good Eyes Only Licence v0.2
Another "don't be unethical" license, which does an impressive job at legally defining exactly what "unethical" means. Unfortunately, while this is better than the JSON license, most programmers don't want to track if a country's score in the Reporters Without Borders “Press Freedom Index” is worse than 40. Source
-
Only allows modifying the software if you publish your changes as a linked fork specifically on GitHub. What happens if GitHub goes down? What happens if GitHub decides to make itself unavailable in your country? Who knows! Source
-
A license that disallows anything to do with the software or its source code, viewing included. Additionally, the software doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. Source
-
Black Open Source Software License v1.0
An "open-source" software license that is not actually open-source or intended for software, created instead to protect an asset library. Uses informal language and has inconsistent rules about who can use the library, including saying that nobody working for any government in any capacity can use the library, even for their own personal use. Also says it can't be used for AI without defining what AI means (what about video game AI?)
-
A non-software license similar to the Creative Commons that bans all use of the content in "AI technologies", giving an extremely broad definition of AI that would include things like video game AI or simple image recognition algorithms. Source
-
Nuclear Waste Software License
A possibly MIT-like license for software that is neither a place of honor, nor in commemoration of a highly esteemed deed, etc. Source
-
Another license with vague requirements for not allowing anyone to use it for racist or bigoted purposes (who is deciding what counts as racist for the purpose of this license?), but gets bonus points for prohibiting any sale of the software or derivative works unless "substantial changes to the Work" are made, which explicitly violates the OSI open-source license standard.
-
A license used for the XKCD inspired sandcastle builder game. Source
-
A "source-available" license that says you can't fork the project, which means it is illegal to click the fork button on GitHub (which is a violation of the GitHub ToS) and also makes it impossible to create any pull requests without push access to the original repo. Source