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

“Good Luck with That” Public License

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 52 posts

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#2

Post by tener »

This:

> 0. You just DO WHAT THE F*CK YOU WANT TO as long as you NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product.

may be in fact quite tricky to ensure: unless you do an (potentially expensive) audit of the code and all potential binary assets within you will never be sure.

To see how difficult it is to erase all traces: see how the state-backed hacking groups keep getting traced.

EDIT:

Why the downvotes? Yeah I know this is a joke license, but to a lawyer no license is a joke, and to use something in a corporate environment you really need to have one on board.

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#3

Post by evilduck »

tener wrote: post #2

This: > 0. You just DO WHAT THE F*CK YOU WANT TO as long as you NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product. may be in fact quite tricky to ensure: unless you do an (potentially expensive) audit of the code and all potential binary assets within you will never be sure. To see how difficult it is to erase all traces: see how the state-backed hacking groups keep getting traced. EDIT: Why the downvot…

So if you want to use the GLWT license, good luck with that?

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#6

Post by eboyjr »

I am not a lawyer, but many may feel more comfortable if it included something like the following about having no implied warranties:

> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

Also, how can users "NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product" if the author's full name and date of creation is meant to be included in the license?

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#8

Post by lucb1e »

eboyjr wrote: post #6

I am not a lawyer, but many may feel more comfortable if it included something like the following about having no implied warranties: > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. Also, how can users "NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original produ…

> how can users "NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product" if the author's full name and date of creation is meant to be included in the license?

By changing the license file.

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#9

Post by imtringued »

tener wrote: post #2

This: > 0. You just DO WHAT THE F*CK YOU WANT TO as long as you NEVER LEAVE A TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product. may be in fact quite tricky to ensure: unless you do an (potentially expensive) audit of the code and all potential binary assets within you will never be sure. To see how difficult it is to erase all traces: see how the state-backed hacking groups keep getting traced. EDIT: Why the downvot…

"Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]"

I don't think it's possible to comply with this license because the license text itself will already contain enough information to track the author.

Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License

#10

Post by rectang »

There's a long tradition of licenses with a rebellious spirit, either deliberately or incidentally drafted in such a way that makes them hard to interpret. Before this "GLWTPL" there was the WTFPL, the JSON license, etc.

People who choose such a license should be aware that they are making downstream adoption of their product more difficult. (For some authors that is surely the point.)

Post reply on HN