> F*CK Either you say fuck or you don't.
Maybe it's to bypass dumb corporate dirty word filters.
“Good Luck with That” Public License
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#12This: > 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.
Nobody said you had to leave it in there.
In fact, it explicitly states you have to get it out of there.
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#13I 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.
Maybe it should be more explicit:
> No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information.
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#14Similarly permissive license: http://www.wtfpl.net/
More permissive, as it doesn't force you to "NEVER LEAVE A
TRACE TO TRACK THE AUTHOR of the original product".
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#15Another joke license... somewhat funny, but I dearly hope, no one considers using it for any code. If you think, your code should be thrown away, please don't spam hosts like Github with it. But if you don't want to throw away your code, and in my experience, most code has a value, then please publish it under one of the well-known licenses. I think it is one of the great features of Github, that on creation of a repository, it offers you to attach one of the well-known licenses to your project. This ensures that your code can be used without creating legal pitfalls and does not get lost.
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#16Does no attribution requirement make it non free?
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#17There'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.)
How does do-whatever-you-want make adoption more difficult?
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Maybe it should be more explicit: > No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202
I mean sure. If you want to do it by the books, but the whole thing is a joke.
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#19There'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.)
How does do-whatever-you-want make adoption more difficult?
Serious answer: Most companies big enough to care about this sort of thing have a list of approved open source licenses, which their lawyers have read and decided they're ok with. Using a license not on that list means you need to talk to the lawyers. That usually takes a few days of back and forth emails.
Re: “Good Luck with That” Public License
#20There'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.)
How does do-whatever-you-want make adoption more difficult?
If the license isn't on a pre-approved list I have to send it to the in house legal team. Good Luck With That!!