On 2015-11-11 10:06 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 12 November 2015 at 15:50, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 2015-11-11 9:46 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
Because of the swear word?
Well that doesn't help of course. :)
But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but says nothing about any other material.
And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.
From the FAQ[0]:
Is the WTFPL a valid license?
Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts, it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.
Hmmm, ok, clause 0, the operative clause is so brief I missed it :)
But the fact that it doesn't have a disclaimer is still risky.
From the next question in the FAQ[0]:
Why is there no “no warranty” clause?
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, 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://www.wtfpl.net/ for more details. */
Bottom line is its still crap, and should not be supported.
You expressed my sentiments about the GPL perfectly ... oh wait :)
Cheers, Matthew Brush