WTFPL
en.wikipedia.org
WTFPL
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: WTFPL
#2I 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.
Re: WTFPL
#3I 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.
What would you need to defend?
Re: WTFPL
#4I 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.
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.
Re: WTFPL
#5I 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.
It seems to me that you would use this license if you specifically intend to spit in the eye of copyright laws in general. The use of this license burns quite a few bridges even without the profanity, but the profanity makes it a political statement in addition to a legal document.
Re: WTFPL
#6I always thought this license was misnamed since it does have one restriction:
"and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."Re: WTFPL
#7I always thought this license was misnamed since it does have one restriction: "and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
Doesn't that just apply to the license document -- not the software itself?
Re: WTFPL
#8Earlier 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.
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.
Re: WTFPL
#9I 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.
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.
Re: WTFPL
#10I always thought this license was misnamed since it does have one restriction: "and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. Doesn't that just apply to the license document -- not the software itself?
Oh, you're right.