Here's what's considered harmful, assuming you actually have concerns about whatever it is you're licensing[1]:
using a license that is a cut and paste job (i.e. you took it from the web, or some other source; i.e. it was not drafted for you and your work specifically).
1. If you don't really care much about what you're licensing, the license doesn't really matter. Probably 99% of programs fit this category. With "99%" of programs, no one gets wealthy, no one gets sued, the license has no real impact on anything, life goes on as if there had never been a license. And in most cases no one even reads these licenses. Hence things like the "shareware" license, the "beerware", the "dowhatthefuckyouwantto" license, the GPL, "Copyleft", "Ty Coon", and so on. These are mocking the entire practice of licensing. There's a reason for that.
And for many years even the ones who do care about licensing, e.g. Microsoft, would have licenses that contained unenforceable terms. But how many Windows users cared about reading a license?
If you really cared about licensing your software (e.g. you thought someone might get wealthy from the software, or someone might get sued), then you'd spend a few bucks to have a lawyer draft a license for you, specifically.
And if users really cared about the licenses they were agreeing to, they'd probably complain. Because some of the licenses, the terms they contain, are beyond unreasonable. They are so one-sided as to be unenforceable.
It's amusing how programmers who post comments on the web are so tuned in to licenses, but in reality they spend little effort/money when it comes to licensing. And that's OK, because with "99%" of software programs, it does not matter. It's irrelevant. No one gets wealthy, no one gets injured, no one sues. It's neither here nor there. Some cut and pasted text that no one reads is good enough.
But licenses do make a great subject for programmer chatter on the web. It never stops.
Truthfully, in the context of the web, at the end of the day, the license is not nearly as important as whether someone is going to sue. Because if she really wants to sue, and has the means to do so, a copy and pasted license is probably not going to stop her.
So if all traffic including wifi was encrypted with very strong crytography, that's OK? If we show people using computer networks for communication (i.e. billions of people) how to use strong cryptography, that might not be good?
Bad guys might use cryptography. So we should keep all traffic open to sniffing? Plus, keeping traffic unencrytpted creates jobs, doesn't it? e.g., with companies that do data mining and such. It might deny innovative companies like Google the ability to gather data and improve their services.
using a license that is a cut and paste job (i.e. you took it from the web, or some other source; i.e. it was not drafted for you and your work specifically).
1. If you don't really care much about what you're licensing, the license doesn't really matter. Probably 99% of programs fit this category. With "99%" of programs, no one gets wealthy, no one gets sued, the license has no real impact on anything, life goes on as if there had never been a license. And in most cases no one even reads these licenses. Hence things like the "shareware" license, the "beerware", the "dowhatthefuckyouwantto" license, the GPL, "Copyleft", "Ty Coon", and so on. These are mocking the entire practice of licensing. There's a reason for that.
And for many years even the ones who do care about licensing, e.g. Microsoft, would have licenses that contained unenforceable terms. But how many Windows users cared about reading a license?
If you really cared about licensing your software (e.g. you thought someone might get wealthy from the software, or someone might get sued), then you'd spend a few bucks to have a lawyer draft a license for you, specifically.
And if users really cared about the licenses they were agreeing to, they'd probably complain. Because some of the licenses, the terms they contain, are beyond unreasonable. They are so one-sided as to be unenforceable.
It's amusing how programmers who post comments on the web are so tuned in to licenses, but in reality they spend little effort/money when it comes to licensing. And that's OK, because with "99%" of software programs, it does not matter. It's irrelevant. No one gets wealthy, no one gets injured, no one sues. It's neither here nor there. Some cut and pasted text that no one reads is good enough.
But licenses do make a great subject for programmer chatter on the web. It never stops.
Truthfully, in the context of the web, at the end of the day, the license is not nearly as important as whether someone is going to sue. Because if she really wants to sue, and has the means to do so, a copy and pasted license is probably not going to stop her.
Food for thought.
Public domain.