21–30 of 36 posts
"CommentWidget isn't released under a particular open source license. You can do whatever you like with the code, anything at all."
I find it funny that this apparently meets the Wikipedia notability standards. Anyway, I always found it strange that anyone would choose to use this license. The concept behind it is great, but why include unnecessary profanity in the license terms? It seems like it would only make it more difficult to defend the validity of the license and any works released under the license.
I would worry that this is not actually legally binding.
http://thisscientificmethod.com/2010/02/28/this-is-an-experi...
See also : The Romantic WTF Public License http://danslalune.posterous.com/the-romantic-wtf-public-lice... It's even more free than the original since the license is released under itself. Released on Valentine's day by yours truly :-)
These kinds of licenses are cute, but you shouldn't use one as it just makes life harder on those that might adopt and patch back into your software. Additionally, in this case, the lack of a disclaimer of warranty in this particular cute license is ill advised.
The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the following wording in your source code:
/* This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to
* the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it
* and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want
* To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See
* http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING for more details. */
I provide support for my code under a "pay it forward" license. i.e. if I provide support to you and help you get my code running, then I expect you in turn to invest the time to clearly document what I showed you. This is a principle of least effort, insofar as I will provide support assuming I won't need to duplicate my work for the next guy. It also means I don't need to needlessly document things that people don'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.