I do understand your viewpoints. I just disagree that they're significant enough in practice to outweigh the value I see in WTFPL. The lack of a warranty discl

I do understand your viewpoints. I just disagree that they're significant enough in practice to outweigh the value I see in WTFPL. The lack of a warranty disclaimer isn't an issue in practice; my readme just says "WTFPL, no warranty". The vague rights grant isn't something I've seen as an issue in analogous situations in case law. More important, to me, is what WTFPL says about my code: I'm not precious about it, I give it to you, I trust you to go do amazing things with it. It is a very humble licence. It says life is too short to get precious about licence wankery. Plus there's the side-effect that small companies and artisan developers can use it, while behemoths like Google won't. These, in my view, are all to the good. I don't expect you to share that view, but for these reasons, WTFPL is a "good licence" for me. OpenStreetMap thrived for years with a WTFPL-licensed editor (I wrote/maintained it). No-one died, no-one got sued, and OSM became one of only four worldwide geodatabases. The main reason the current editing software isn't WTFPL (I started it but handed over to more talented developers pretty quickly) is that Intel wanted to use it, went "WTF WTFPL", and asked the new maintainer to change it. He did, but tagged the next release idiot-intel-lawyers. I laughed. (IANAL, though I have spent way too much time over the past 15 years studying licenses and their applicability across different jurisdictions, again principally in connection with OSM and with its - very successful - licence change.)