3 ms·

I'm a fan of the license. https://www.wtfpl.net/about/ https://www.wtfpl.net/about/

• johanbcn 5mo ago
  > changing it [the license] is allowed as long as the name is changed. But what if that's exactly what I want to do?
  • recursive 5mo ago
    Then it's allowed.
• ventana 5mo ago
  Besides other fun things about this license, using it effectively forbids Google employees to send patches to your projects. [1] [1]: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/patching#forbidden https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/patching#f...
  • wvbdmp 5mo ago
    The paragraph doesn’t really explain the rationale for forbidding WTFPL and even Public Domain and CC0? They’re all fine for commercial use, aren’t they?
    • andai 5mo ago
      I thought they were basically BSD/MIT but even less annoying.
    • Hugsbox 5mo ago
      Only a guess, but it could be because WTFPL is effectively very similar to having no license at all from what I gather
  • jareklupinski 5mo ago
    TIL > The Hippocratic License is an ethical software license created to ensure that open source software is not used for harmful purposes, aligning with human rights principles
• giancarlostoro 5mo ago
  I find it funny, but prefer just MIT or CC0. I like the idea of the GPL for core OS components you don't want to be locked down by anyone, but for everything else, unless you the developer intend to monetize so you can maintain it, MIT is fine (even if you intend to monetize it can be fine too).