Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WTFPL

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: WTFPL

#11

Post by ajross »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #9
scdlbx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you need to defend?

If I'm not mistaken, the GPL has had to be defended in court several times. It's a situation where someone tries to charge money for a product, but a GPL'd source code was used in the product. That particular situation doesn't apply to this license however, since you can, apparently, do whatever you want.

The GPL has nothing to do with "charging money", so no, that's never been tested in court. And in any case, in a suit regarding any distribution license, it is the copyright owner who would bring the suit, forcing the alleged infringer to "defend" the case.

Re: WTFPL

#14

Post by almost »

3dFlatLander wrote: post #12

Is there any legal difference between using this license and releasing something under public domain?

In some countries there isn't a legal concept of public domain. I don't know much more than that but I think Germany may be one of them.

Re: WTFPL

#16

Post by vog »

almost wrote: post #14
3dFlatLander wrote: post #12

Is there any legal difference between using this license and releasing something under public domain?

In some countries there isn't a legal concept of public domain. I don't know much more than that but I think Germany may be one of them.

Yes and no.

Here in Germany (and other countries) we do have a public domain ("gemeinfrei", "gemeinfreie Werke"), but it contains only works whose authors died at least 70 years ago. It is impossible for a living person to actively put their work into the public domain.

However, this is not as bureaucratic as it may sound. You can still sign off any exploitation rights ("Verwertungsrechte")! But there are other rights you cannot sign off, the author's moral rights ("Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte").

In general, there are two flavours of copyright law in the world:

1) The copyright which centers around the act of copying or doing other things with the creative work. This is found in the USA and Great Britain.

2) The author's rights ("Urheberrecht", "droit d'auteur") which centers around the creators. This is found in Germany and France.

Re: WTFPL

#17

Post by tedunangst »

viraptor wrote: post #8
eru wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scenario: Alice writes a program, puts it under that licence, Bob uses the program, Alice dies and her heir Eve wants to get money from Bob for using the software. Eve tries to get a court to declare the licence invalid, so that Bob has to re-licence the program under new conditions or stop using it.

Assuming that it's possible at all to declare the WTFPL invalid (why would it be?) - he can re-licence the program to a licence giving everyone exactly the same rights. It is allowed by WTFPL.

Bob is not the copyright owner. He can't re-licence it to anything.

What he can do is re-license a right to use the program, under terms specified by the copyright owner.

I've attached extra meaning to c vs s in the word licence, but the definition you used is not the same as parent.

Re: WTFPL

#18

Post by tedunangst »

3dFlatLander wrote: post #12

Is there any legal difference between using this license and releasing something under public domain?

One problem with the licence is that the text primarily seems to concern itself. Compare MIT licence "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software" or public domain "This ... is public domain." which explicitly tell you what is licensed.

And when you find yourself in court being sued by the original author who says "Obviously, that licence was a joke, I never meant it", good luck....

Re: WTFPL

#19

Post by petercooper »

3dFlatLander wrote: post #12

Is there any legal difference between using this license and releasing something under public domain?

Do some Googling, but there can be liability issues with public domain if your work causes damage. There have been some significant discussions about it over the last year in terms of public domain vs GPL and BSD licenses.

Re: WTFPL

#20

Post by Jeema3000 »

eru wrote: post #4
scdlbx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you need to defend?

Scenario: Alice writes a program, puts it under that licence, Bob uses the program, Alice dies and her heir Eve wants to get money from Bob for using the software. Eve tries to get a court to declare the licence invalid, so that Bob has to re-licence the program under new conditions or stop using it.

Eve could do that, for sure. Nothing in the license forbids it. Declaring the license invalid and requiring users to re-license it does fall under 'what the fuck you want to' according to my interpretation of the license. But then again, I believe so does 'doing what the fuck I want to', so there's that too...
Post reply on HN