4 ms·

It's a bad license for two reasons: One, it does not cover the case where it's not possible to place stuff in the public domain (CC0 does). Two, it's alienating

It's a bad license for two reasons: One, it does not cover the case where it's not possible to place stuff in the public domain (CC0 does). Two, it's alienating some users unnecessarily. Licenses are practical, there's no reason to invent a new term for concepts that already have well-known identifiers. Put your jokes outside the license section.

viraptor 13y ago
Another reason not to use it would be pre-approved licences in corporations. I can use software released under many popular free licenses without issues. But something like this one forces a roundtrip through the legal department which takes days / weeks. If you want your software to be business/corporate friendly, make sure you're using something popular (and preferably not mentioning patents or special linking clauses).
SamHocevar 13y ago
(disclaimer: I wrote WTFPL v2) I fart on your recommendation of the CC0. Your first “reason” is totally bogus. There is no need to cover cases where it’s not possible to place stuff in the public domain, because there is no need to place stuff in the public domain. That’s a fabrication of the CC0 license and one of the reasons why the OSI does not recommend it. A license shouldn’t even mention public domain since it’s not a widely accepted concept. Your second “reason” sounds like a matter of taste to me, especially since the CC0 goes to great lengths defining new terms such as “Commons” and “Affirmer”. If there’s a joke here, it’s the CC0, in needing more than a thousand words to basically say “do what the fuck you want”. Moreover, here is a quote from the OSI about the CC0: “the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0”. It’s also worth noting that the WTFPL predates the CC0 by nine years. Nine years to fill a non-existing void, and they couldn’t even do it properly.

viraptor 13y ago

Another reason not to use it would be pre-approved licences in corporations. I can use software released under many popular free licenses without issues. But something like this one forces a roundtrip through the legal department which takes days / weeks. If you want your software to be business/corporate friendly, make sure you're using something popular (and preferably not mentioning patents or special linking clauses).

SamHocevar 13y ago

(disclaimer: I wrote WTFPL v2) I fart on your recommendation of the CC0. Your first “reason” is totally bogus. There is no need to cover cases where it’s not possible to place stuff in the public domain, because there is no need to place stuff in the public domain. That’s a fabrication of the CC0 license and one of the reasons why the OSI does not recommend it. A license shouldn’t even mention public domain since it’s not a widely accepted concept. Your second “reason” sounds like a matter of taste to me, especially since the CC0 goes to great lengths defining new terms such as “Commons” and “Affirmer”. If there’s a joke here, it’s the CC0, in needing more than a thousand words to basically say “do what the fuck you want”. Moreover, here is a quote from the OSI about the CC0: “the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0”. It’s also worth noting that the WTFPL predates the CC0 by nine years. Nine years to fill a non-existing void, and they couldn’t even do it properly.