50+ Bizarre, Funny, and Downright Weird Software Licenses, You Do not Know About

As a software developer and open-source blogger since 2003, I've seen a lot. GPL, AGPL, MIT, Apache, the usual suspects. But hidden within the vast ecosystem of open-source software lies a treasure trove of licenses that range from the hilariously absurd to the genuinely unsettling.

These licenses aren't just functional; they're a testament to the creativity, humor, and sometimes, the pure frustration of developers. Let's dive into over 50 of the strangest software licenses ever conceived.

Why Do Weird Licenses Exist?

Software licenses are meant to be legal documents, right? So why do we see clauses about immolating children or restricting use to Overwatch champions? Often, it's a mix of:

• Humor: A wink, a nudge, developers injecting personality. (My Favorite kind)
• Frustration: A reaction against perceived misuse or corporate overreach (looking at you, SSPL).
• Ideology: Enforcing personal beliefs or ethical stances. (You have to go to the Church License)
• Joke & Sarcasm: Pure parody, often poking fun at the complexity of traditional licenses.

So, buckle up! Here's a curated list of some of the weirdest, wildest, and most wonderful software licenses out there.

The Hall of Fame (Infamy?) for Weird Software Licenses

1. The "Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License" (WTFPL): The ultimate in permissive licensing. "You just DO WHAT THE F*CK YOU WANT TO." Period. Simple, effective, and profane.
2. The "Don't Be A Dick" Public License (DBAD): Slightly more refined than the WTFPL, this license lets you do anything, as long as you're not a dick. It even defines dickish behavior. Refreshingly honest.
3. The "Evil License" 😈: Flip the script! This license only allows use for nefarious purposes. Need help brainstorming evil plots? This license might be for you.
4. The "Don't Ask Me About It" License 🤷🏻‍♂️: Freedom with one condition: never, ever contact the author about anything related to the software. Ever. It's like the digital equivalent of "not my problem."
5. The "Sltar License" 👹: One of the darkest. Use this software, and you must give your firstborn child to the author for... well, let's just say it involves the devil. Not recommended for actual use.
6. The "Katharos License" 😇: On the flip side, this license demands religious "purity," requiring use to be "good" according to the entire Bible. A unique take on ethical licensing, though highly subjective.
7. The "Anyone But Richard Stallman" License: A specific exclusion for a specific person (the FSF founder). Shows how personal feelings can manifest in licensing choices. Variants exist for other "assholes."
8. The "JSON License": An MIT-style license with a twist: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." But who defines good and evil? Legally murky, but philosophically intriguing.
9. The "Monkey License": "Nobody has permission to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it." Okay then. It's clear, even if it defeats the purpose of licensing.
10. The "Fight Club License": A memetic hazard indeed. The name itself should tell you it's not to be trifled with lightly.
11. The "Bugs License": Like its cousin, the DAMAIL, but promises to be "better." Public domain, no pull requests accepted. Simple.
12. The "Schrödinger License": Now safe to observe. A quantum take on licensing? The details are probably both clear and confusing until you look.
13. The "Hot Potato License": Transfers exclusive ownership to whoever made the last commit. A recipe for chaos or an interesting experiment in distributed ownership?
14. The "Buena Onda License Agreement": Releases code into the public domain but politely asks you not to be mean. Politeness over legal jargon. Refreshing!
15. The "Protected Free To Use Software License": Described as "truly bizarre" with baffling restrictions, like no binary redistribution ever, except maybe on GitHub. Confusing and contradictory.
16. The "YOLO License": For the spontaneous coder. "420 blaze it ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ". Captures a moment in internet culture.
17. The "Happy Bunny License": Another MIT variant, but discourages military use. "By making use of the Software for military purposes, you choose to make a Bunny unhappy." Cute, but serious.
18. The "Overwatch License": Modification allowed only if your competitive rank beats the maintainer's. Gamifying open-source contribution? Unique, but likely unenforceable.
19. The "THE STRONGEST PUBLIC LICENSE": Based on the WTFPL, but requires appreciating Cirno from Touhou as the strongest. A niche requirement for a permissive license.
20. The "LHA License": An old Japanese license with bizarre requirements and vague wording. A relic of early software distribution.
21. The "Minecraft Mod Public License": Specific to Minecraft mods, requiring a legal copy of the game. Shouldn't be used outside its intended scope.
22. The "Nice License": Use the software only if you properly document your public API. However, "negligent" documentation isn't defined. Who decides what's negligent?
23. The "Bantown Public License": Requires committing criminal acts to use the code. Definitely not for ethical developers.
24. The "Do No Harm License": Claims to prevent "bad" use, listing things like gambling, nuclear energy, and "lobbying against peace." Definitions are lacking, making it legally questionable.
25. The "Be Gay Do Crimes License": You must be gay and do crimes to use this software. Another darkly humorous or pointed license.
26. The "PEP-401 License": A joke license from an April Fool's Python Enhancement Proposal. Shows the Python community's sense of humor.
27. The "For Good Eyes Only Licence v0.2": Tries to define "unethical" legally, referencing the Press Freedom Index. Complex and potentially restrictive.
28. The "wg-easy license": Modifications allowed only if published as a linked fork specifically on GitHub. What happens if GitHub goes down? A risky dependency.
29. The "Fuck Your License": Disallows anything related to the software. It doesn't exist. It's all in your head. A philosophical or absurdist take.
30. The "Black Open Source Software License v1.0": Not truly open-source, created for an asset library. Informal language, inconsistent rules, bans government use entirely. Odd.
31. The "I HATE AI LICENSE": Bans use in "AI technologies," broadly defined. Could include simple algorithms. A strong stance against AI.
32. The "Nuclear Waste Software License": Possibly MIT-like, for software that is "neither a place of honor, nor in commemoration..." A very specific and unusual preamble.
33. The "Opinionated Queer License": Vague anti-racism/bigotry clause, but also prohibits selling unless "substantial changes" are made, violating OSI standards. Conflicting goals.
34. The "OTTer license": Used for an XKCD-inspired game. Specific and likely tied to the project's nature.
35. The "Winamp Collaborative License": "Source-available" but forbids forking. Makes pull requests impossible without push access. Contradictory and restrictive.
36. The "Curse of Knowledge License": You can use it, but only if you don't know you're allowed to. A paradoxical condition.
37. The "GREENWARE License": The only requirement is to "make an everyday effort to help out with the environment." Vague and non-technical.
38. The "Gumroad Community License 1.0": Use prohibited if you make too much money. Patent protection also vanishes if you make too much, opening liability. Potentially exploitative.
39. The "Psi License": Claims to be "reasonably open" but has non-commercial and API modification restrictions, yet requires modified versions under an actual open-source license. Logically impossible.
40. The "BATL License": "Vibe-driven." Do what you want, but good luck if things go wrong. Relies on consulting an LLM for issues. Embraces uncertainty.
41. The "Mephistopheles License": For those worried about losing their soul. A darkly humorous take on the risks of software.
42. The "Chicken Dance License v 0.2": Distribute source code with derivatives. Named after a dance, adding a quirky element.
43. The "No problem bugroff license": Very permissive. Simple and to the point, despite the odd name.
44. The "EXT JS License": No animals harmed by the user, employer, or project. An unusual ethical clause.
45. The "Death and Repudiation License": No use by living persons. Ensures the software is truly dead code.
46. The "Alcohol license clause": Despite the name, it doesn't really involve alcohol. Misleading title adds to the weirdness.
47. The "Tumbolia Public License": Another license in the vein of creative, non-standard public licenses.
48. The "Wiccan Rede License": "An it harm none, do what ye will." Borrowing from Wiccan philosophy for a permissive license.
49. The "Cookie Ware License": For lovers of cookies. Use the software, buy the author a cookie. Simple and sweet.
50. The "Gay Agenda License": Revoked if the user supports restricting LGBTQ+ rights or fails to say "be gay, do crime." Enforces ideological alignment.
51. Non-AI Licenses (Various): Modified standard licenses (BSD, MIT, CC0) explicitly prohibiting use for AI training. A growing trend against AI misuse.

The Server Side Public License (SSPL), A Special Mention

While not as absurd as some on this list, the Server Side Public License (SSPL) by MongoDB deserves a nod. It's controversial, designed to prevent cloud providers from offering the software as a service without open-sourcing their changes. Some call it open-source, others call it source-available or even non-free. It sparked significant debate about what constitutes true open-source licensing.

The Takeaway: Humor, Caution, and Creativity

These licenses, whether born from humor, ideology, or sheer frustration, remind us that behind every line of code is a human. They showcase the spectrum of developer sentiment towards sharing, control, and ethics in the software world. While most are clearly unsuitable for serious projects, they offer a fascinating glimpse into the culture and creativity of the open-source community.

Have you encountered any other bizarre licenses? What's the strangest software license you've ever seen or used? Share your experiences in the comments below!

Questions to Answer:

• Are these licenses legally enforceable? It varies greatly. Many are clearly jokes or unenforceable due to vagueness or contradiction. Others might hold up in court, depending on jurisdiction and specific wording.
• Should I use these licenses for my projects? Generally, no. Stick to established, OSI-approved licenses for clarity and legal protection. These weird licenses are mostly for fun or specific niche cases.

GitHub - ErikMcClure/bad-licenses: A compendium of absurd “open-source” licenses.

A compendium of absurd “open-source” licenses. Contribute to ErikMcClure/bad-licenses development by creating an account on GitHub.

GitHubErikMcClure

GitHub - benlk/misc-licenses: A collection of various licenses, with mild commentary upon them.

A collection of various licenses, with mild commentary upon them. - benlk/misc-licenses

GitHubbenlk