21–30 of 30 posts
http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
What would concern me about using that WTFPL license is there's no disclaimer about fitness for use/purpose, which might mean to someone "do what the fuck you want - including suing me".
Not trying to look like a scaremonger, just a personal view.
Look, I wouldn't let a lawyer tell me how to write my Java code. And I won't let a non-lawyer tell me how to write a legally binding license.
(If a competent lawyer reviews this license and pronounces it good, then I retract my objection. If the license gets tested in court and wins then it gets my full support.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people will treat work of merit as if it's licensed WTFPL anyway People will punch others in the face outside bars on Friday nights too, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable, even if it's hard to prosecute universally. Some content creators (OK, let's be honest: an awful lot of content creators) would rather their work isn't used by the other side's political party, or by XYZ bigoted group, or by Megacorp in their a…
Is is possible to release software with a licence, which prohibits it's use for religious entities?
That license would be non-FSF-Free and wouldn't meet the OSI definition of Open Source, though, as both groups see the benefit of allowing anyone to use the software. The OSI lists the criteria[1] as "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".
Therefore, while possible, it might not be particularly useful to do that. You also need to consider the implications of combining your software with software released under a differently-permissive license -- you could quickly get into a position where your software can't be distributed at all without violating at least one of the licenses that apply.
Also note that I Am Not A Lawyer and I'm sure there's a jurisdiction somewhere which would read your license in a different way to that which is intended, or would strike out parts of it altogether, ending up with either a more permissive or a less permissive license than you'd intended.
[0]: I am currently wearing a pink shirt. Please don't sue me. [1]: http://opensource.org/osd
This isn't exactly news... pulls out soap box The WTFPL is great, though. It's a shame not more people use it. It seems to me that for truly free speech, restrictive licenses need to be abandoned, even if it's at the sake of a content donor's money (traditional copyright) or fame (copyright and copyleft). There are a lot of good arguments for the copyfree movement, in general. If we see freedom as being the absence o…
Putting aside the legal issues, I am not ever going to introduce unnecessary expletives if I want people to take my work seriously/professionally. If I do see a license like this I'll automatically assume that the author isn't taking that particular code seriously and treat it accordingly (ie may use personally but never professionally).
I chose the ISC license for both of my projects. http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC What would concern me about using that WTFPL license is there's no disclaimer about fitness for use/purpose, which might mean to someone "do what the fuck you want - including suing me". Not trying to look like a scaremonger, just a personal view.
And the lack of disclaimer of warranty in the WTFPL is not fear-mongering... it's a real issue, and one of the reasons we (Google) don't allow our engineers to use it.
The only problem with that license is when someone uses it, then I make use of their code, then they sue me for copyright violation. Or my code kills someone in a hospital and the patient sues the guy who wrote the code. And they win in court because the license doesn't satisfy the requirements of the court. Look, I wouldn't let a lawyer tell me how to write my Java code. And I won't let a non-lawyer tell me how to w…
The only problem with that license is when someone uses it, then I make use of their code, then they sue me for copyright violation. Or my code kills someone in a hospital and the patient sues the guy who wrote the code. And they win in court because the license doesn't satisfy the requirements of the court. Look, I wouldn't let a lawyer tell me how to write my Java code. And I won't let a non-lawyer tell me how to w…
Thanks mcherm, this is the best counter-argument to the WTFPL I read all day. I am myself extremely curious about what would happen in these two circumstances: 1) someone uses my work and then sues me for copyright infringment; 2) my work harms people.