3 ms·

Google also recoils from WTFPL, which may make it a more palatable license for folks who don't agree with the AGPL's various quirks and features. Not that AGPL

Google also recoils from WTFPL, which may make it a more palatable license for folks who don't agree with the AGPL's various quirks and features. Not that AGPL is bad, but WTFPL is quite bare-bones.

brendyn 7y ago
Presumably because using it is terribly reckless. It doesn't even contain a standard disclaimer preventing the user from suing the distributor or copyright holder.
- loeg 7y ago
  You want the WTFNMFPL instead: https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-but-it's-not-my-fault-public-license-v1-(wtfnmfpl-1.0) https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-b...
  - tingletech 7y ago
    I can't find either on this list https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      THE OSI rejected it and considered it equivalent to the public domain.
    - loeg 7y ago
      The OSI isn't the arbiter of all things.
- catalogia 7y ago
  Has any programmer ever actually been sued after using the WTFPL license? If not, if the threat is theoretical, then I don't think it meets the bar for "terribly reckless."
  - loeg 7y ago
    This is not a strong argument, because the license is young and not popular. You're more likely to see lawsuits for licenses used widely in software, especially in software that is widely used. I don't think WTFPL meets either criteria — it's relatively unused, and nothing using it is super popular. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, or something like that.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      The sort of software you see using this license is not the sort of software anybody is likely to get sued over anyway. To say that Joe Blow is being "terribly reckless" because he licensed his vimscript that prints the weather forecast to the terminal with a license that doesn't forbid suing him seems like a gross exaggeration. He's probably more likely to get struck by lightning than to be sued by anybody using his software. I think a lot of people forget that not all software needs to be aerospace grade shit that with licenses corporate suits think are sensible. Certainly WTFPL is not an appropriate license for every software project, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for all software projects.
      - speedplane 7y ago
        > The sort of software you see using this license is not the sort of software anybody is likely to get sued over anyway. ... I think a lot of people forget that not all software needs to be aerospace grade shit that with licenses corporate suits think are sensible. Generally, lawsuits arise under two conditions: - You start making lots of money. - You're doing something that causes someone else to lose lots of money. The same is true of software licenses. You won't get sued for hobby projects with low impact. But if you start making money, others will want a piece. If you start impeding on someone else's revenue, they will want to protect it. If you're in either of these situations, software licenses matter.
        catalogia 7y ago
        > You won't get sued for hobby projects with low impact. I agree, and that's precisely the sort of software I've seen using the WTFPL license. I don't think it's right to characterize this as reckless. Licensing something like PostgreSQL as WTFPL would be reckless, but I don't think that's how the license is actually used by the community.
loeg 7y ago
Do you have a source for Google recoiling from WTFPL? It wouldn't be too surprising but I've also never heard anything about it.
- cbhl 7y ago
  The lawyers say Googlers can't even contribute to WTFPL-licensed projects: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no...
  - loeg 7y ago
    Amusingly, they also can't do Beerware. There is a historical incident involving IBM's lawyers asking PHK "how many beers?"
umvi 7y ago
Why can't you simply fork any project with WTFPL and re-licence under MIT?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Presumably because it doesn't have the necessary legalese in it that would let you do that safely.

Google also recoils from WTFPL, which may make it a more palatable license for folks who don't agree with the AGPL's various quirks and features. Not that AGPL is bad, but WTFPL is quite bare-bones.

brendyn 7y ago

Presumably because using it is terribly reckless. It doesn't even contain a standard disclaimer preventing the user from suing the distributor or copyright holder.

loeg 7y ago
You want the WTFNMFPL instead: https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-but-it's-not-my-fault-public-license-v1-(wtfnmfpl-1.0) https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-b...
- tingletech 7y ago
  I can't find either on this list https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    THE OSI rejected it and considered it equivalent to the public domain.
  - loeg 7y ago
    The OSI isn't the arbiter of all things.
catalogia 7y ago
Has any programmer ever actually been sued after using the WTFPL license? If not, if the threat is theoretical, then I don't think it meets the bar for "terribly reckless."
- loeg 7y ago
  This is not a strong argument, because the license is young and not popular. You're more likely to see lawsuits for licenses used widely in software, especially in software that is widely used. I don't think WTFPL meets either criteria — it's relatively unused, and nothing using it is super popular. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, or something like that.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    The sort of software you see using this license is not the sort of software anybody is likely to get sued over anyway. To say that Joe Blow is being "terribly reckless" because he licensed his vimscript that prints the weather forecast to the terminal with a license that doesn't forbid suing him seems like a gross exaggeration. He's probably more likely to get struck by lightning than to be sued by anybody using his software. I think a lot of people forget that not all software needs to be aerospace grade shit that with licenses corporate suits think are sensible. Certainly WTFPL is not an appropriate license for every software project, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for all software projects.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > The sort of software you see using this license is not the sort of software anybody is likely to get sued over anyway. ... I think a lot of people forget that not all software needs to be aerospace grade shit that with licenses corporate suits think are sensible. Generally, lawsuits arise under two conditions: - You start making lots of money. - You're doing something that causes someone else to lose lots of money. The same is true of software licenses. You won't get sued for hobby projects with low impact. But if you start making money, others will want a piece. If you start impeding on someone else's revenue, they will want to protect it. If you're in either of these situations, software licenses matter.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        > You won't get sued for hobby projects with low impact. I agree, and that's precisely the sort of software I've seen using the WTFPL license. I don't think it's right to characterize this as reckless. Licensing something like PostgreSQL as WTFPL would be reckless, but I don't think that's how the license is actually used by the community.

loeg 7y ago

Do you have a source for Google recoiling from WTFPL? It wouldn't be too surprising but I've also never heard anything about it.

cbhl 7y ago
The lawyers say Googlers can't even contribute to WTFPL-licensed projects: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no...
- loeg 7y ago
  Amusingly, they also can't do Beerware. There is a historical incident involving IBM's lawyers asking PHK "how many beers?"

umvi 7y ago

Why can't you simply fork any project with WTFPL and re-licence under MIT?

saagarjha 7y ago
Presumably because it doesn't have the necessary legalese in it that would let you do that safely.