4 ms·
Fun fact: at least one large company I worked with explicitly internally documented WTFPL-licensed software as unable to be merged into their codebase, because
by q3k 8y ago
Fun fact: at least one large company I worked with explicitly internally documented WTFPL-licensed software as unable to be merged into their codebase, because lawyers. Cf. MIT/BSD/Apache/ISC/CC-BY/CC0 that were all fine.
- dankohn1 8y agoWTFPL is not OSI-approved and so briefly held up containerd coming into CNCF. https://github.com/chanezon/toml#about-this-fork https://github.com/chanezon/toml#about-this-fork
- deathanatos 8y agoIANAL, this is not legal advice, etc. If you disagree that the WTFPL is a useable license, how does forking & relicensing work? Changing the license requires having a license that allows you to do so to the new target license (or ownership of the copyright). But if our assumption is that we reject the WTFPL as a valid license, how can we simultaneously use it to relicense? I.e., instead of a needing a legal debate about whether the WTFPL allows you to use the code, it would seem to me you trade that for a legal debate about whether the WTFPL allows you to re-license the code. (At any rate, the upstream relicensed to MIT, and BurntSushi sought agreement from "major contributors, where I interpreted 'major' as '100 lines of code or more.'", so the entire thing appears moot.)
- icebraining 8y agoYes, clearly you can't change the license of a project you don't have a valid license to.
- loeg 8y agoIBM's lawyers reportedly asked Poul-Henning Kamp "how much beer?" re: the Beer-ware unlicense[0]. [0]: http://edwards.dk/thesis.pdf http://edwards.dk/thesis.pdf (p. 120, 231)
- Doctor_Fegg 8y agoSome of us rather like that unintended consequence of the WTFPL.
- rmc 8y agoInclude Google: https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#banned https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#bann...