4 ms·

Wouldn't that be even more reason to just pick a license that doesn't ruffle feathers? BSD is nice. So is MIT. Says the same thing but doesn't get people to

• sp332 14y ago
  It's an expression of frustration at how much effort has to go into understanding licensing. For this amount of code, no author or reader should have to consider the terms of a license. (And the license-to-code ratio would be even more ridiculous. )
  • Jach 14y ago
    No amount of code is too small, as the recent Oracle v. Google BS has shown. The rangeCheck method that was contested: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 (It made my day when the judge revealed he had former coding experience.) People shouldn't be worried about covering their ass for this stuff, but if they don't it could cost them. The WTFPL is also a frustration at that fact. As a bonus it eliminates the slight annoyance of people emailing/commenting and asking what the license is if one wasn't provided, at the cost of sensitive people complaining elsewhere about the profanity. I've used a "version 3" (different version, different name!) of the WTFPL that I picked up from somewhere on a few of my projects, it has some additional legal garble that would probably beef it up just slightly if it was ever tested in court. https://github.com/Jach/lucid_demo/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/Jach/lucid_demo/blob/master/COPYING