3 ms·

In spirit, yes. In practice, the wording is much more legally problematic in the WTFPL. And licenses such as MIT-0 or 0BSD contain liability waivers that are n

In spirit, yes. In practice, the wording is much more legally problematic in the WTFPL. And licenses such as MIT-0 or 0BSD contain liability waivers that are not present in the WTFPL

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Is there actual in practice case law distinguishing them? I mean this question sincerely despite my skepticism.
- rectang 5y ago
  There are tangible costs to crayon licenses, long before cases reach court. The more convoluted and amateurish the drafting, the more unclear the meaning and the more that lawyers make advising clients what to do about them. Sticking it to users who care about compliance is part of the appeal of licenses like the WTFPL, but it's ironic that the money flows to lawyers. When the ASF finally banned the JSON license for use in dependencies, the legal cost of figuring out compliance was one of the motivations cited by the people who proposed the ban.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Some people think that a short and simple license keeps lawyers away. It's the very opposite. There's a good reason why GPL and contracts for renting an apartment, buying a car etc are so long: it's to reduce ambiguity.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      For the GPL, this makes sense. In rental contracts this can be incredibly annoying. I’m one of those people who reads them from start to finish, and very frequently I have to have them amended because they’re obviously either: - reused from previous rental terms, incorrectly restating basic local laws which have since been revised - downloaded from some website, with terms which are obviously illegal locally These contracts just introduce more ambiguity. They really should just reference the relevant legal codes. And at least in places with good protections for renters, that should maybe be mandated so the actual lease document is reduced to meaningful terms the renter needs to know.

In spirit, yes. In practice, the wording is much more legally problematic in the WTFPL. And licenses such as MIT-0 or 0BSD contain liability waivers that are not present in the WTFPL

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Is there actual in practice case law distinguishing them? I mean this question sincerely despite my skepticism.

rectang 5y ago
There are tangible costs to crayon licenses, long before cases reach court. The more convoluted and amateurish the drafting, the more unclear the meaning and the more that lawyers make advising clients what to do about them. Sticking it to users who care about compliance is part of the appeal of licenses like the WTFPL, but it's ironic that the money flows to lawyers. When the ASF finally banned the JSON license for use in dependencies, the legal cost of figuring out compliance was one of the motivations cited by the people who proposed the ban.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Some people think that a short and simple license keeps lawyers away. It's the very opposite. There's a good reason why GPL and contracts for renting an apartment, buying a car etc are so long: it's to reduce ambiguity.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    For the GPL, this makes sense. In rental contracts this can be incredibly annoying. I’m one of those people who reads them from start to finish, and very frequently I have to have them amended because they’re obviously either: - reused from previous rental terms, incorrectly restating basic local laws which have since been revised - downloaded from some website, with terms which are obviously illegal locally These contracts just introduce more ambiguity. They really should just reference the relevant legal codes. And at least in places with good protections for renters, that should maybe be mandated so the actual lease document is reduced to meaningful terms the renter needs to know.