4 ms·
I would argue that WTFPL[0] is also fairly close to being a public domain, right there next to CC0. Even FSF recognizes it as a valid (but not a recommended) li
by r3bl 11y ago
I would argue that WTFPL[0] is also fairly close to being a public domain, right there next to CC0. Even FSF recognizes it as a valid (but not a recommended) license[1].
[0] http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL
- cmaher 11y agoThe difference being that large bureaucratic organizations need an army of lawyers to approve the use of open source libraries, and using a common license that is already understood (e.g. CC0) will result in a far smoother experience when the developers in that organization try to use anything to make their miserable lives a touch nicer. source: I have formerly lead one of the described miserable lives.
- DannyBee 11y agoNo, it isn't. It's so far from CC0 it's ridiculous. It has no explicit right grant at all, no disclaimer of warranties, blah blah blah blah blah. (i've been through all the issues before on hacker news)
- kuschku 11y agoNo, it isn’t. WTFPL isn’t even valid in lots of countries