4 ms·
how does WTFPL compare to this?
by normaler 5y ago
how does WTFPL compare to this?
- freemint 5y agoBadly. It is absolutely unclear how a judge would interpret it when the licensor later says he intended something else then what you interpret to be the spirit of the license as there is no "word of the license" that is legally parseable.
- bombcar 5y agoIt’s missing a patent section and a disclaimer of warranty, but it’s also amusing.
- nsajko 5y agoBoth are merely joke licenses.
- suprfsat 5y agoWhat makes it a joke?
- lifthrasiir 5y agoFor WTFPL, if a parody counts as a joke, the author's own words: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/149050/should-i-change-the-name-of-the-wtfpl#comment617907_161949 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1490... (The author of the version 2, to be exact, but this version is also the widespread version of WTFPL anyway.)
- Dylan16807 5y agoA type of joke but definitely not "merely" a joke. Even that brief explanation says so in the second sentence.
- michaelt 5y agoIf you want an approximately-public-domain license that pokes fun at the officious and arbitrary ideas lawyers hold, and that those lawyers say isn't officious enough, you want WTFPL. If you want an approximately-public-domain license that seems pretty sincere but the same lawyers say isn't officious enough, you want Unlicense. If you want an approximately-public-domain license that lawyers seem to think is quite nice, but that's more for cultural work than software, and whose creators don't recommend it be used for software, you want CC0. If you want an approximately-public-domain license with a much more famous sibling, and plenty of lawyers say the sibling is good, you want 0BSD.
- goodpoint 5y agoCompares equally poorly. It's a bad joke.