5 ms·

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

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.
        speedplane 7y ago
        > 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. "Reckless" is too strong, but shortsighted or poor judgment might be more appropriate. If you're using a software license for anything, whether it's a hobby, a helpful library, or a potential business venture, that means you're distributing your work to the world. What benefit do you gain by using a poorly understood license that is effectively the same as widely used permissive licenses?

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.
      - speedplane 7y ago
        > 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. "Reckless" is too strong, but shortsighted or poor judgment might be more appropriate. If you're using a software license for anything, whether it's a hobby, a helpful library, or a potential business venture, that means you're distributing your work to the world. What benefit do you gain by using a poorly understood license that is effectively the same as widely used permissive licenses?