How do I go about putting my software's source code into the public domain?

[dmd7978]

I think it is time for me to put my software, Splinter DC Splinter page , into the public domain. I doubt I am ever going to be able to work on/with it, anymore. I would rather have it expanded upon and be bettered by better folks, than me, then to not due to me wanting to keep the source secret. Maybe some type of "centrallized" location that I would be able to visit and see how it is progressing...  I have no idea how to do this or where to start and I should have done it long ago.

A bit biased I may be, but, SHOCKINGLY, I believe it to be the most powerful/capable desktop interface software, already, and think that if I let it go it will only become better. (would 'have" to, right?)

Any ideas or thoughts or suggestions or critiques of what I am thinking about doing would be appreciated.

Here is a demo vid and a jenky tutorial. They are probably irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion but I don't know what you need to know in order to best advise me, so....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjiHMMZ2dFA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FnLuXFGiQk

Thanks

[KodeZwerg]

Maybe some type of "centrallized" location that I would be able to visit and see how it is progressing...  I have no idea how to do this or where to start and I should have done it long ago.

Hello there, you could try www.github.com, there you create an account, prepare a local folder the way the end-user should get.
Like splitted folders for "Source only" and "Binary only" things.
If Third-Party is needed to compile "Source only" to "Binary only" folder on Users Pc, document it.
A readme.txt or similar would also be a good thing to document how all work, what Packages are needed, wich Compilers supported, commandline switches etc etc etc
When everything is prepared and tested by yourself and you are happy to do,
upload everything on GitHub and Publish somewhere, like in here, the GitHub Link. You can set a License for the usage of Source in that upload progress.
Afterward Users have the ability to fork your Source, investigate it, enhance it, giving modifications back to you as a request.
If you write in your Project readme that you will not continue Project, the User with best modifications will then kinda lead Project on his GitHub, but you as the Source are always owner/named with link to your GitHub.

Does that match your request?

[dmd7978]

Maybe some type of "centrallized" location that I would be able to visit and see how it is progressing...  I have no idea how to do this or where to start and I should have done it long ago.

Does that match your request?

It just may, I will look at github more deeply, thank you.

[Tuxman]

There is no "public domain" in most jurisdictions. Unless you want to keep us damn Europeans out, you'd better choose an "explicit Public Domain" license, like the WTFPL. (Which is what I do.)

[Nod5]

I think it is time for me to put my software, Splinter DC Splinter page , into the public domain. I doubt I am ever going to be able to work on/with it, anymore. I would rather have it expanded upon and be bettered by better folks, than me, then to not due to me wanting to keep the source secret. Maybe some type of "centrallized" location that I would be able to visit and see how it is progressing...

Think through if a public domain license is what you want or if some other license is a better fit. https://choosealicense.com/ is a useful resource.

This page https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ places licenses on a spectrum of openness. The Unlicense at the bottom of the page is what many mean by public domain. If you want to ensure ability to access the source code of software derivative of your work then you could pick a more open license than the Unlicense. FWIW I tend to use GPLv3.

It is easy to set up a GitHub account. If you mostly want to do a one time upload of the code to your own repository then you can probably do that through the web interface without even installing a git client.

[dmd7978]

I think it is time for me to put my software, Splinter DC Splinter page , into the public domain. I doubt I am ever going to be able to work on/with it, anymore. I would rather have it expanded upon and be bettered by better folks, than me, then to not due to me wanting to keep the source secret. Maybe some type of "centrallized" location that I would be able to visit and see how it is progressing...

Think through if a public domain license is what you want or if some other license is a better fit. https://choosealicense.com/ is a useful resource.

This page https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ places licenses on a spectrum of openness. The Unlicense at the bottom of the page is what many mean by public domain. If you want to ensure ability to access the source code of software derivative of your work then you could pick a more open license than the Unlicense. FWIW I tend to use GPLv3.

It is easy to set up a GitHub account. If you mostly want to do a one time upload of the code to your own repository then you can probably do that through the web interface without even installing a git client.

Thanks. I will definitely look into the licensing. As far as Github, no way, no chance. I just read that they were purchased by Microsoft last January. The last place any developer, on Earth, should be putting their source code is on a website owned by Microsoft. They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please. It is like the cookie monster buying a cookie factory

[Tuxman]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

[Deozaan]

There's also gitlab.com and bitbucket.org

[Tuxman]

And hub.darcs.net.

[wraith808]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

Totally agree!  They bought it because they're getting into the OSS space.  They had access to the source already, as everything else there is already public, so if they did it for that reason, they'd be stupid to spend all that money. 

[skwire]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

I absolutely agree with Tuxman.  It was a public open-source repository before Microsoft bought it.  In other words, prior to their purchase, they already had access to all of the code anytime they pleased.

[KynloStephen66515]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

I absolutely agree with Tuxman.  It was a public open-source repository before Microsoft bought it.  In other words, prior to their purchase, they already had access to all of the code anytime they pleased.

Adding to this, I explained to him earlier in another thread that Microsoft are one of the biggest Open Source contributors on GitHub and have done more good than bad for the service (by releasing things like VSCode and such).

*edit*

ahha...mouser didn't delete that thread yet so I can paste what I said here!

I mean - This was a huge story in the programming community when it happened, and has made absolutely no difference to how GitHub has worked since the takeover.  Microsoft have actually been doing some big things in the Open Source community and has produced a huge amount of code and such which is now available for anybody to use. 

In my opinion, M$ taking over GitHub has done no harm, and has actually served quite well.  It has also given them the direct ability to link GitHub to their programming suites (such as Visual Studio) meaning a much easier way to manage ones code.  That and the fact that Microsoft are probably one of the biggest contributors to the Open Source community right now (with offerings such as Visual Studio Code being open source).

A huge company buying things like this don't always have to mean doom and gloom. 

[KodeZwerg]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

@dmd7978: github or no github, as soon as you publish somewhere Microsoft Agents will hunt it and make millions with that *laugh*
What i meant to say: as soon as you put your work somewhere, everyone can access. If this is a problem, dont publish.

[anandcoral]

dmd7978, let me explain. When you are giving some charity, do not try to judge the people lining for it.
If you are putting something in public domain, the all 'public' has access to it, including rich and poor.

Anyway, I suggest make zip file of your code, make some screen shots, write some description and put it here in DC Forum. Follow Skrommel. Take advise of Mouser.

Regards,

Anand

[Nod5]

It was a public open-source repository before Microsoft bought it.  In other words, prior to their purchase, they already had access to all of the code anytime they pleased.

Not all, since paid GitHub plans also include the option to create private repos.

So far there seem to be no change in how GitHub operates. But it isn't unreasonable to worry about longer term changes. For some such worries, see 
https://developers.slashdot.org/story/18/06/04/0935200/microsofts-interest-in-buying-github-draws-backlash-from-developers 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05426-0

I wonder what will happen to GitHub's Atom now given that it is a competitor to Microsoft's Visual Studio Code.

[Tuxman]

The loss of Atom would be no loss for developers.

[Nod5]

The loss of Atom would be no loss for developers.

I and 18% of the SO 2018 survey respondents politely disagree 
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#technology-most-popular-development-environments

But it is interesting to see how VS Code has skyrocketed to the top since 2016
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017/#technology-most-popular-developer-environments-by-occupation
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016/#technology-development-environments

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here so will go quiet now.

[Tuxman]

If these 18% and you  lost Atom over night, they'd move on to VS Code or Sublime Text, probably. They are all interchangeable, except that Sublime Text is not that disgustingly resource-clogging.

[app103]

They only bought it for one reason. To have access to all of that code whenever they please.

This is FUD and nothing else.

Yeah, they already have access to all that code whenever they please, and so does everyone else. It wouldn't make sense to buy it just for that.

If you saw a box with a sign that said "Free Candy", would you buy the box, just for the candy? Or would you just reach in and grab what you want, like everybody else? It's not like they can throw a lid on the box and keep it all for themselves, only. Open source is still open source, after all.

Think about this:

• You can learn some software development skills on Lynda (owned by Microsoft)
• You can use your skills to develop software in Visual Studio (owned by Microsoft)
• You can offer that software to the public in the Windows App Store (owned by Microsoft)
• You can make that software open source, hosted on Github (owned by Microsoft)
• You can use all of that to land yourself a job through LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft)

Do you now see how this all fits together?